/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240813.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 13, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 162 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Fender Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals A-LINE STAFFING: Marmol Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info ADOBE INC: Underpays Social Media Managers, Nelson Suit Alleges ANDY FRAIN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hiring Discrimination ARBOR REALTY: Faces Securities Class Suit After Forensic Reports ASCENSION HEALTH: Hoskins Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Greene et al. Sue Over Racial Profiling BITWISE INDUSTRIES: Settles Furloughed Employees' Class Suit BOAR'S HEAD: Faces Class Action Over Listeria Contamination BURLINGAME INDUSTRIES: Faces Espinoza Labor Suit in Cal. Super. CAE INC: Gamache Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements CASCADE LIVING: Class Settlement in Kastel Suit Gets Initial Nod CENCORA INC: Angulo et al. Sue Over Data Security Failure CENTERSPACE LP: Class Settlement in Hall Suit Gets in Initial Nod CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Court Stays Reuschel Suit CHAROEN POKPHAND: LST Sues Over Alien Fish Infestation Damages COMPASS GROUP: Seeks Hearing on Jilek Class Certification Bid CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Class Counsel Awarded $91K Reimbursement CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Class Settlement in Coe Gets Final Approval CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Delta Air Seeks Compensation Over Big Outage DENNY'S INC: Class Settlement in Estrada Suit Gets Final Nod DONALD W. WYATT: Hellested Sues Over Massive Data Security Breach DXC TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Suit Over 17% Stock Price Drop EMBANET-COMPASS KNOWLEDGE: Marquez WARN Act Suit Seeks Class Status ENPHASE ENERGY: Hayes Alleges Breaches of Federal Securities Laws EPISCOPE COMPANIES: Godinez Sues for Breach of Sick Leave Ordinance ESO SOLUTIONS: Court Narrows Claims in Jones Suit FANDUEL INC: Unlawfully Gathers Website Users' Info, Mitchener Says FITNESS ASSOCIATES: Gilewicz Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. FIVE BELOW: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Information FLORIDA: Judge Suggests Medicaid Class Action Settlement FULTON BANK: Gutzmirtl Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees GENERAL MILLS: Cereal & Cocoa Products "Unsafe," Melendez Claims HAWX LLC: Faces Esposito Labor Suit in Cal. Super. HOME & HEALTH: Discovery Related to Class Status Closed HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bal Sues Over Defective Tow Hitch Wiring INDIVIOR PLC: Faces Class Suit Over Violations of Securities Laws INDIVIOR PLC: Faces Herbst Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Field Workers, Murras Suit Says INTEL CORP: Abington Cole Investigates Chip Instability Issues INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 2 INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: Conditional Status of Class Action Sought J&C AMBULANCE: Kara Seeks to Certify Class JASPER COUNTY, SC: Davis Bid for Summary Judgment Tossed JEFF ZMUDA: Lockett Bid for Class Certification Tossed JEFF ZMUDA: Spencer Bid for Class Certification Tossed JEFF ZMUDA: Younger Suit Dismissed as Duplicative JEFFERSON STREET HOTEL: Olekaibe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JP MORGAN: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois JP MORGAN: Milan Suit Removed to C.D. California KEN'S FOODS: Austin Seeks Conditional Class Certification KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Barton Sues Over Unsafe Amount of Lead LENDING LOVE: Foster Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LGI HOMES: Class Cert Oral Argument in McAlister Set for Nov. 7 LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Mitchell Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. LOEWS HOLLYWOOD: Cardenas Suit Removed to C.D. California LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Parish of St. Mary Suit Removed to W.D. La. LUNO INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MACROGENICS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 24 MAGNESIUM PRODUCTS: Skipwith Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages MAMA TACO LLC: Colon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MANHATTAN PARKING: Balseca Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MARTHA WOOD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Walther Extended to Sept. 20 MC TRANSPORT SERVICES: Orozco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MCMENAMINS INC: Allowed to File Answer Beyond Deadline MDL 2984: Plaintiffs Class Certification Bid Granted in Part MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Baltimore v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025 MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Basler v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025 MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Haak v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025 MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Hufton v. GHI Due Nov. 3, 2025 MECC CONTRACTING: Badalamenti Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MEIJER GREAT LAKES: Kubiak Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois MELISSA MARTIN: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MERICLE MECHANICAL: Emrick Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MERIT ENERGY: GOP LLC Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal MID-ATLANTIC EATERIES: Class Settlement in Berman Gets Final Nod MORGENSTERN'S BANANAS: Forrest Sues Over Website's Access Barriers MORPHIC HOLDING: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations MV FOODS: Lawman Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers NATIONAL BOARD: Faces Bahreini Class Suit Over ADA Violations NEW BRUNSWICK: Agrees to Settles 2017 Jail Fire Class Action NEW HAMPSHIRE: Loses Bid for Reconsideration in G.K. Lawsuit NEW VIDEO CHANNEL: Cheng Files Suit in S.D. New York NLP LLC: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California NOVA HOME: Plaintiffs' Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Tossed NTN BEARING: Collins Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois NTN BEARING: Collins Suit Removed to S.D. California OLD DOMINION FREIGHT: Rhyner Suit Removed to C.D. California ORIENT EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Duan Suit Alleges PALO ALTO INC: Patterson Sues Over Minimum Wages PANERA LLC: Chan Seeks Sept. 30 Extension for Class Cert Filing PECO FOODS INC: Duncan Files Suit in N.D. Alabama PHILLIP MORRIS: Norris Sues Over ZYN Oral Nicotine's Deceptive Ads POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Seeks to Clarify Class Cert Order in Guzman PREMIER FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With WesBanco PUBLIX SUPER: Roberts Seeks Conditional Status of Collective R1 RCM: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to Investment Funds RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Bonilla Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages RENTREPORTERS LLC: Avedisian Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida REPUBLIC OF TEA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Knowles Alleges RESTAURANT DEPOT: Warren Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois RESULTS CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS: Warren Files Suit in D. Delaware ROAD RUNNER SPORTS: Stevens Suit Removed to S.D. California ROBINHOOD: Parties Seeks Omnibus Sealing in Order Flow Litigation RYDER INTEGRATED: Class Settlement in Perkins Gets Initial Nod SAM'S WEST: Broussard Sues Over Fruit Cups' Deceptive Labels SELECT REHAB: Plaintiffs' Amended Bid for Protective Order Tossed SIEMENS MOBILITY: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Carrillo SIEVA NETWORKS: Court Junks Payne Class Status Bid SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Seeks to Quash Six Subpoenas in Lyngaas Suit SP PLUS: Faces Fatton Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amato Has Until August 22 to Serve Reply Brief SUNNOVA ENERGY: Martinez Suit Removed to C.D. California SUNRISE RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ochoa Alleges SYSCO SACRAMENTO: All Fact Discovery Due July 1, 2025 TEXAS RETINA: Faces Bennett Class Action Suit in Texas Fed. Ct. TICKETMASTER CANADA: Quebec Consumers Sue Over Abusive Fees TIKTOK INC: Plaintiffs Can File Documents Under Seal TOPEKA CORRECTIONAL: Judge Denies Certification of Inmates Suit TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Hydrogen Market Monopoly TRANS UNION: Redactions and Sealing Requests Warranted in Brooks TRANSUNION LLC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by June 27, 2025 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Alberta Court Certifies Employment Class Action UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Lo Class Action Suit Over False Price Discounts US PAROLE: Lewis Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification VAXART INC: Himmelberg Seeks to Certify Class VAXART INC: Plaintiffs Seek Sealing of Class Cert Documents VERISK ANALYTICS: Shares Driving Data, Flores & Abolfathian Say VICTORS SUSHI: Plaintiffs Seek Conditional Class Certification WARNER MUSIC: Hall Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action WELLS FARGO: Former Employees Sue Over Prescription Drugs Program WELLS FARGO: Mismanaged Plan's Prescription Drug Cost, Navarro Says WHOLE FOODS: Safari Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing WILLIAM LEE: Bid to Clarify Class Certification Briefing OK'd WISCONSIN: Elmhdati Dismissed w/o Prejudice from Class Action WOW RESTAURANT: Chen Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid WYNDHAM VACATION: Evidentiary Hearing on Class Cert Bid Sought YAMAYA USA: Faces Ortega Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ZANDER GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jones Extended to August 28 [*] Court Approves Class Settlement to Protect Iraqi Immigrants  ********* 3M COMPANY: Fender Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------- Odis Fender, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03963-RMG (D.S.C., July 15, 2024) is a class action seeking for damages for Plaintiff's personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) during the course of his training and firefighting activities. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to warn public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Accordingly, Plaintiff assert claims for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability (statutory), strict liability (restatement), fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, 3M Company is a Delaware corporation that operates as a technology company and manufactures industrial, safety and consumer products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 A-LINE STAFFING: Marmol Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID MARMOL and ANGEL MENCHACA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. A-LINE STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-11966-MAG-DRG (E.D. Mich., July 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored on its network systems following a data breach on or around June 3, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. A-Line Staffing Solutions LLC is a staffing agency, with its place of business in Utica, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 229-4023 Facsimile: (813) 222-4708 Email: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com - and - Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 N 11th St., #402 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 448-1125 Email: ryan@maxeyfirm.com ADOBE INC: Underpays Social Media Managers, Nelson Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MIRANDA NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADOBE, INC.; KYLESSICA, INC., dba THE SOCIAL STANDARD; CRAWFORD GROUP, also known as CRAWFORD COMMUNICATIONS GROUP; and DOES 1 - 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV19066 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including declaratory relief, misclassification of employees, failure to provide lawful rest breaks, failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to maintain accurate earnings statement, one day off in seven, working more than six days in seven, unpaid overtime/double-time compensation, failure to maintain required records, failure to pay accrued vacation, and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a social media manager. Adobe, Inc. is a computer software company headquartered in San Jose, California. Kylessica, Inc., doing business as The Social Standard, is a marketing agency doing business in California. Crawford Group, also known as Crawford Communications Group, is a marketing company, headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARC COLEMAN 115 Pine Avenue, Suite 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432-8188 Email: marc@marccolemanlaw.com - and - David J. Duchrow, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID J. DUCHROW 8929 South Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 204 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 452-4900 Facsimile: (310) 452-4901 Email: djduchrow@yahoo.com ANDY FRAIN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hiring Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that security and crowd control personnel provider Andy Frain Services has been hit with a class action lawsuit accusing the company of allegedly discriminating against job applicants with criminal records, allegedly in violation of Illinois state law. On July 29, attorneys form the Workforce Law Partners PC firm, formerly known as Fish Potter Bolaños, of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Andy Frain. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiff Daniel Lee, identified only as a resident of Cook County. According to the complaint, Lee has a criminal conviction record. The lawsuit asserts the Aurora-based Andy Frain has violated the Illinois Human Rights Act by allegedly refusing to hire people, like Lee, with criminal conviction records for crowd security positions. The lawsuit notes that in 2021, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signed into law an amendment to the IHRA law that was enacted by the state's Democratic legislative supermajority that increased anti-discrimination protections for people who had been convicted of crimes. Before the amendment, the lawsuit notes, the IHRA law prohibited employers from screening against people who had been arrested, but not convicted. In 2021, however, Pritzker and Democrats expanded the law to also block employers from screening against job applicants who had been convicted of crimes. Under the new version of the law, employers in Illinois must now consider whether there is a "substantial relationship between the conviction and job" being sought and whether employment of a person with a conviction would "involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public." Employers who deny a job to an applicant based on a criminal conviction must also provide applicants with certain required notices, which give the applicant the opportunity to respond to the determination. State lawmakers and Pritzker said the changes to the law were needed to particularly enhance job and career advancement opportunities for black and Latino Illinois residents, who they said have been "disproportionately impacted" by employers screening against job applicants with criminal convictions. In the lawsuit against Andy Frain Services, Lee and his attorneys claim Lee was illegally denied a job as a security guard by Andy Frain in 2022, after Andy Frain allegedly found a 2014 criminal conviction as part of a background check. According to the complaint, Lee was a former licensed security guard who had previously worked for Andy Frain for eight months. The lawsuit claims Andy Frain was aware of the 2014 conviction at that time. However, Lee said Andy Frain still used his conviction against him in the fall of 2022, when Lee reapplied for a job with the company. Lee claims the company had offered him a job, but rescinded that offer following a background check. According to the complaint, Andy Frain asserted it believed Lee's felony conviction "would disqualify him from the required licensure to carry a firearm." Lee contends that license is not needed for most security jobs through Andy Frain, allegedly including the job of events security officer which Lee allegedly applied for. The lawsuit asserts Andy Frain's rejection of Lee was part of a pattern of allegedly illegal discrimination against job applicants with criminal convictions without applying the new tests allegedly required by the new state law. The plaintiffs seek to expand the action to include at least dozens of others with criminal convictions who similarly have been denied jobs by Andy Frain. The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring Andy Frain to change its alleged hiring practices and to submit to state human rights training programs. They are seeking unspecified money damages. Employers hit with IHRA lawsuits can face significant penalties, including uncapped compensatory damages and punitive damages. Andy Frain did not respond to a request from The Record for comment concerning the lawsuit. Lee and the proposed plaintiffs' class are represented by attorneys David Fish and Mara Baltabols, of Workforce Law Partners. [GN] ARBOR REALTY: Faces Securities Class Suit After Forensic Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. (NYSE: ABR) investors who suffered substantial losses to submit your losses now. Class Period: May 7, 2021 -- July 11, 2024 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sept. 30, 2024 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ABR Contact An Attorney Now: ABR@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Securities Class Action Against Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. (ABR): Arbor Realty Trust (ABR) is under fire from investors who allege the mortgage real estate investment trust misled them about the health of its loan portfolio. A federal class-action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of New York accuses ABR of providing false and misleading information about its financial performance between May 7, 2021 and July 11, 2024. The complaint contends that ABR painted a rosy picture of its business, particularly the quality of its loan book, in public filings and earnings calls. However, this rosy view began to unravel on Mar. 14, 2023 when NINGI Research published a report questioning the value of ABR's real estate holdings, specifically its mobile home portfolio. ABR's stock price dipped following the report. The pressure on ABR intensified on Dec. 5, 2023 when activist short seller Viceroy Research released a scathing report alleging widespread issues with the company's loan book. The report sent ABR's stock price lower. However, it was the dramatic plunge on July 12, 2024 that ignited investor fury. Following a Bloomberg report that federal prosecutors were investigating ABR's lending practices, the company's stock price plummeted, wiping out billions in shareholder value. Investors allege that ABR's misrepresentations artificially inflated its stock price, causing significant financial losses to those who purchased the company's shares during the class period. The lawsuit seeks damages for the investors. "We are investigating whether Arbor may have hid operational and financial risks from investors," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Arbor should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email ABR@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN] ASCENSION HEALTH: Hoskins Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- ROXANA HOSKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00964 (E.D. Mo., July 15, 2024), arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its patients. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act. Ascension Health is a Catholic health-system that includes approximately 134,000 associates, 35,000 affiliated providers and 140 hospitals, serving communities in 19 states and the District of Columbia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen A. Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Greene et al. Sue Over Racial Profiling ---------------------------------------------------------- IAN GREENE, DEONDRE MARQUES JONES, and JAMES BEAVER in their Individual and Representative Capacities on Behalf of a Class of All Persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, MARK STAINBROOK, JERRY WHITTAKER, PIERRE ROMAIN, and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, all sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05916 (C.D. Cal., July 15, 2024) arises under the laws of the United States including Title 42, Section 1983, of the United States Code and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of all Black people who were detained or arrested by the City of Beverly Hills Police Department from June 1, 2022 through June 1, 2024 without being convicted of any crime. Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege accuses the Defendants of false arrests, deliberate fabrication of charges and malicious prosecution of Black Americans resulted in the deprivation of liberty to all class members. City of Beverly Hills is a public entity duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California. BPHD is a part of the city. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley C. Gage, Esq. Milad Sadr, Esq. BRAD GAGE LAW, APC A Partnership of Professional Corporations 23002 Victory Boulevard Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 340-9252 Facsimile: (818) 340-9088 E-mail: brad@bradgagelaw.com milad@bradgagelaw.com - and - Benjamin Crump, Esq. BEN CRUMP LAW FIRM 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 E-mail: Court@BenCrump.com - and - Jeffrey Spencer, Esq. THE SPENCER LAW FIRM 2 Venture, Suite 220 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 240-8595 Facsimile: (949) 377-3272 E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net BITWISE INDUSTRIES: Settles Furloughed Employees' Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Rhett Rodriguez of YourCentralValley.com reports that Bitwise Industries reached a settlement agreement of $20 million with its former employees after they filed a class action lawsuit against the company for failing to pay their employees and give them proper notice they were being laid off on Wednesday, July 31. It's been over a year since the tech company collapsed and former employees of the company are still recovering from all the financial hardships it caused. The news comes just weeks after the former CEOs Jake Soberal and Irma Olguin pleaded guilty in federal court to felony charges of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Attorney Roger Bonakdar has spent more than a year trying to get compensation for the former employees whose lives were upended after Bitwise's downfall. "These are members of our community, these are the people that bitwise built its business on their backs. So we stood up for them and it really feels great to have reached a settlement that is going to get them as close to hold as possible," said Bonakdar. Pending a Delaware Bankruptcy Court's sign-off on the agreement, the money will then be divided among employees based on the amount that was owed to them by the company. "Bitwise is a defunct entity, so this is a very rare occurrence to be able to salvage anything for hurt employees and here the money is coming from a combination of some of the directors, as well as some insurance companies that had certain coverages, It's been a long battle," said Bonakdar. Former Bitwise employee Jenn Guerra says she will believe it when the money hits her bank account. "I will feel justice when the check is handed over to me but nothing has happened yet," said Guerra. Bonakdar says he's hopeful former employees will receive their checks before Christmas. [GN] BOAR'S HEAD: Faces Class Action Over Listeria Contamination ----------------------------------------------------------- Rachael Oatman, writing for Meat+Poultry, reports that a proposed consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc. on Aug. 1, following the company's widespread recall of deli meats and other products due to Listeria monocytogenes contamination. New York resident Rita J. Torres filed a complaint against Boar's Head with the U.S. Eastern District Court of New York individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons. Torres alleged the manufacturer engaged in misleading labeling and marketing by not disclosing to consumers on the packaging that the products were contaminated with Listeria. She added that had Boar's Head presented information of a Listeria contamination on the packaging, she and other consumers would not have been willing to pay as much. Torres noted that she checked the packaging before purchasing Boar's Head Ham at a Shop Rite store in Queens County, NY, at an approximate retail price of $11.54. She claims to have been "injured in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant's improper conduct." The suit seeks monetary relief of an unspecified amount for consumers nationwide who likewise purchased one or more of Boar's Head's recalled products. The recall was first announced July 26, involving over 200,000 lbs of liverwurst product as well as other deli meat products produced at the Boar's Head Jarratt, Va., establishment. Less than a week later, the company extended the recall to include 71 additional ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, totaling approximately 7 million lbs. "Out of an abundance of caution, we decided to immediately and voluntarily expand our recall to include all items produced at the Jarratt facility," Boar's Head said in a statement on its website. "We have also decided to pause ready-to-eat operations at this facility until further notice. As a company that prioritizes safety and quality, we believe it is the right thing to do." Consumers were advised to discard any recalled products or return them to the store where they were purchased for a full refund. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) posted an update on July 31 in its ongoing investigation of a Listeria outbreak, saying epidemiologic and laboratory data now show that meats sliced at deli counters, including Boar's Head brand liverwurst, were contaminated with Listeria and making people sick. The outbreak has infected a total of 34 people across 13 states as of July 26. Of 33 people with information available, all have been hospitalized. Two deaths have been reported, one in Illinois and one in New Jersey. CDC noted that a pregnant woman who became infected has remained pregnant after recovering. In addition to the class action suit against Boar's Head, a couple from Missouri filed a lawsuit on July 26 after the wife, Sue Fleming, "fell deathly ill" from consuming Boar's Head liverwurst contaminated with Listeria, according to the complaint. The couple seeks to hold Boar's Head responsible for her illness and prevent future contamination events from happening to others. They requested $25,000 for punitive damages, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and any other relief the court sees fit. [GN] BURLINGAME INDUSTRIES: Faces Espinoza Labor Suit in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burlingame Industries, Inc. The suit is captioned as Juan Manuel Espinoza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Burlingame Industries, Inc., a California General Stock Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0008383 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin County, July 17, 2024). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged employment law violation. Burlingame provides construction services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP CAE INC: Gamache Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- NORBERT GAMACHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAE INC., MARC PARENT, and SONYA BRANCO, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05360 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2024) asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. The case concerns Defendants' misrepresentations concerning significant cost overruns in CAE Inc.'s Defense segment caused by several fixed-price, long-term Defense contracts entered into prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired CAE stock on an exchange in the United States between February 11, 2022 and May 21, 2024, inclusive. Allegedly, during the said period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions, engaged in a scheme to deceive the market, and artificially inflated the price of CAE stock, says the suit. Headquartered in Quebec, Canada, CAE is a technology company that offers software-based simulation training and critical operations support solutions. Its stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CAE." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Shikowitz, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 75 Virginia Road White Plains, NY 10603 Telephone: (914) 265-2991 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: rshikowitz@bfalaw.com - and - Adam C. McCall, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: amccall@bfalaw.com CASCADE LIVING: Class Settlement in Kastel Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN KASTEL and STORMIE HOY, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. CASCADE LIVING GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00684-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class and collective settlement. Cascade Living owns and operates, senior housing communities. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3KcoOU at no extra charge.[CC] CENCORA INC: Angulo et al. Sue Over Data Security Failure --------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT ANGULO, CHERIE KLEPEK DEANA SPAULDING, and SANDRA WEYERMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENCORA, INC., and THE LASH GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03015 (E.D. Pa., July 11, 2024) arises from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' protected personal information stored within Defendants' information networks and servers. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons by virtue of a preventable cyberattack on one of their vendor networks that occurred on February 21, 2024. Moreover, Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of duty, and breach of implied contract. Cencora, based in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, formerly known as AmerisourceBergen, is an American pharmaceutical company with over 46,000 employees worldwide. It provides pharmaceutical distribution services for doctor's offices, pharmacies, and animal healthcare. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Heo, Esq. Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 E-mail: aheo@barrack.com jgolan@barrack.com CENTERSPACE LP: Class Settlement in Hall Suit Gets in Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY HALL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CENTERSPACE LP, Case No. 0:22-cv-02028-KMM-DJF (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Menendez entered an order granting the Plaintiff Gary Hall's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All individuals residing in the United States to whom Defendant sent a notice concerning the Security Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendant, its officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iii) any judges assigned to this case and their staff and family; and (iv) any other person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Security Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge." 2. The Court finds that Plaintiff will satisfy all adequacy requirements under Rule 23 and should be appointed as the Settlement Class Representative. Additionally, the Court finds that Raina Borrelli and Brittany Resch of the law firm Strauss Borrelli PLLC will likely satisfy the adequacy requirements for counsel under Rule 23 and should be appointed as Settlement Class Counsel. 3. The Court appoints Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator, with responsibility for class notice and settlement administration. Centerspace provides real estate services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N7TeYy at no extra charge.[CC] CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Court Stays Reuschel Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY REUSCHEL as Executrix of the Estate of Louise McGraw, deceased; and LORETTA HOLCOMB as Executrix of the Estate of Charlotte Rogers, deceased; and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHANCELLOR SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order directing as follows: 1. That Plaintiffs must supplement Mr. West's report with respect to this new data on or before Aug. 5, 2024, with any supplemental rebuttal from Defendant's expert due on or before Aug. 20, 2024. 2. That, inasmuch as this newly produced data will likely impact the substance of the pending Motions, the Court denies without prejudice: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, (2) Defendant's Motion to Strike Expert Report of Jeffrey West In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, (3) Defendant's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, (4) Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Supplement to its Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, and (5) Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Defendant's Expert Witness William Huber. 3. That, upon completion of Mr. West's supplemental expert report, Plaintiffs must renew their Motion for Class Certification, with any accompanying exhibits attached thereto, on or before Aug. 15, 2024, with any response and accompanying exhibits due from Defendants on or before Aug. 30, 2024, and any reply on or before September 5, 2024. The parties should devote particular attention to whether the alleged deceptive conduct constitutes an affirmative misrepresentation or, instead, an omission, along with the impact thereof on the certification question. 4. That the Daubert hearing is continued generally pending a determination of its necessity following full briefing; and 5. That the matter is stayed and retired to the inactive docket pending submission of the aforementioned briefing. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. Chancellor is a company that develops, owns, and operates properties that provide seniors with housing and health care options. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0oltst at no extra charge.[CC] CHAROEN POKPHAND: LST Sues Over Alien Fish Infestation Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- The Nation reports that the Law Society of Thailand (LST) announced on Wednesday, July 31, 2024, that it will file a class-action civil lawsuit against Charoen Pokphand Foods (CPF) Plc for damages caused by the infestation of alien blackchin tilapia in water resources across 16 provinces. At a press conference chaired by LST president Wichian Chupthaisong at the LST head office, the LST did not mention CPF by name but referred to "a business operator that sought permission and imported the alien species for an experiment in 2010". CPF received permission from the Fisheries Department to import blackchin tilapia for an experiment at its research centre in Samut Songkram in 2010. CPF has previously denied causing the infestation of blackchin tilapia in canals and other water resources in 16 provinces, stating that all of its imported fish died and the carcasses were disposed of as advised by the Fisheries Department. Wichian told the press conference that the LST received complaints from villagers in Tambon Yisarn and Tambon Praek Nam Daeng in Samut Songkram's Amphawa district, who reported severe damages caused by blackchin tilapia infesting their shrimp and fish ponds. Wichian said the LST then assigned its representatives to gather more complaints from villagers in the 16 provinces where the alien fish had reportedly infested. He added that the LST's environment committee conducted an investigation and discovered that a company was allowed to import the alien fish for research in 2010, and the fish were found to have infested several water resources by 2017. The infestation was first spotted in Tambon Yisarn and Tambon Praek Nam Daeng, and a study found that the fish originated from the same source with similar DNA traits. Somchai Ameen, chairman of the LST environment committee, said the LST would file a class-action lawsuit with the Civil Court, demanding that the company responsible for the infestation pay damages for the loss of income to local fishermen and shrimp and fish farmers. The company would also be required to cover the cost of restoring the destroyed ecology, based on the principle that the polluter must pay for rehabilitation, Somchai added. He said the LST would also file a lawsuit with the Central Administrative Court against the Fisheries Department for dereliction of duty, citing their failure to stop the infestation. The Central Administrative Court would be asked to order the department to solve the infestation, rehabilitate the destroyed ecology, and charge the costs to the company that imported the fish. Wichian said it would be up to the Civil Court to decide how much compensation the company in question would have to pay to the villagers. He mentioned that the villagers wanted the Interior Ministry to declare disaster zones due to blackchin tilapia infestations so that provincial administrations could pay compensation immediately. He added that he would relay the villagers' wish to the Interior Ministry as soon as possible. [GN] COMPASS GROUP: Seeks Hearing on Jilek Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES JILEK, et al., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., D/B/A Canteen, Case No. 3:23-cv-00818-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order convening a hearing on Plaintiff James Jilek's pending Motion for Class Certification. Compass Group retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aN0Rvi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph C. Wylie II, Esq. Nicole C. Mueller, Esq. Kenn Brotman, Esq. Paul W. Sweeney Jr., Esq. Marla T. Reschly, Esq. Daniel D. McClurg, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60602-4207 Telephone: (312) 372-1121 Facsimile: (312) 827-8000 E-mail: joseph.wylie@klgates.com Nicole.Mueller@klgates.com Kenn.Brotman@klgates.com paul.sweeney@klgates.com marla.reschly@klgates.com daniel.mcclurg@klgates.com CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Class Counsel Awarded $91K Reimbursement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD COE, LINDA SMITH, and EDWARD YOST, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, v. CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT CENTER, INC. and YOUNG MANAGEMENT CORP., Case No. 2:22-cv-02047-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Eric Melgren entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, Attorneys' Fees, and Service Awards. -- Class Counsel shall be reimbursed for litigation expenses in the amount of $91 ,287.80 from the Common Fund within 1 days of this Order. -- Class Counsel shall be awarded one-third of the Common Fund, after deduction of litigation expenses, in the amount of $1,501 ,401.16 from the Common Fund within 10 days of this Order. -- The service awards of $5,000.00 shall be paid to each Named Plaintiff, for a total of$ I 5,000.00, from the Common Fund within 10 days of this Order. Class Counsel represented that each of the Named Plaintiffs contributed at least 100 hours of time in the course of the case answering discovery, preparing for and sitting for a full day deposition, meeting with their lawyers, etc. Each of the Named Plaintiffs also turned down individual opportunities to settle their claims to continue pursuing the claims on behalf of the class members. Without the dedication and time of Named Plaintiffs, this matter would likely not have resolved as it did to the benefit of the class members, including rehabilitation to the prope1ty to remedy the alleged bed bug infestation. Cross Lines offers affordable housing for the elderly and disabled. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pz2FfJ at no extra charge.[CC] CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Class Settlement in Coe Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD COE, LINDA SMITH, and EDWARD YOST, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, v. CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT CENTER, INC. and YOUNG MANAGEMENT CORP., Case No. 2:22-cv-02047-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Eric Melgren entered an order that: 1. The court has personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs and all Class Members and has subject matter jurisdiction to approve this Settlement Agreement; 2. The court grants Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement; 3. The modified Settlement Class agreed to under the Settlement Agreement is finally approved and ce1tified as it was under the Preliminary Approval Order; 4. Bryce B. Bell, Jenilee V. Zentrich, Jeffrey M. Lipman, Gina Chiala, and Amy Sweeny Davis will continue to serve as Class Counsel; and 5. That settlement checks shall be sent to class members within 60 days of this Order. 6. The Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Order and Judgment are binding upon, and have res judicata and preclusive effect in, all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings encompassed by the Released Claims maintained by or on behalf of the Representative Plaintiffs and Member(s); and 7. According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4l(a)(2), the claims in this action are dismissed with prejudice. Cross Lines offers affordable housing for the elderly and disabled. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=45Nv0g at no extra charge.[CC] CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Delta Air Seeks Compensation Over Big Outage ------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Lawler of The Verge reports that In an interview with CNBC, Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian said the July 19th outage caused by a CrowdStrike update cost his company half a billion dollars in five days. Delta canceled more than 5,000 flights that weekend and had blue error screens still visible at airports days after the initial crash. Among the costs Bastian said Delta incurred were more than 40,000 servers that "we had to physically touch and reset" as well as compensation payments to travelers left in the lurch. Asked about a continuing relationship with Microsoft after the crash, Bastian said he regards it as "probably the most fragile platform" and asked the question, "When was the last time you heard of a big outage at Apple?" He placed some blame on the valuations of big tech companies, which lately have been lifted by generative AI hype, saying, ". . . they're building the future, and they have to make sure they fortify the current." Apparently, the only thing offered to Delta so far from the two companies was free consulting advice, so it seems their IT department wasn't on the list for one of CrowdStrike's $10 UberEats cards. CNBC previously reported Delta has hired attorney David Boies to seek damages. Delta isn't alone -- CrowdStrike shareholders filed a proposed class action lawsuit this week, reports Reuters. The suit cites CrowdStrike CEO George Kurtz's comments on a March 5th call that its software was "validated, tested, and certified." The shareholders now regard those claims as false and misleading since CrowdStrike wasn't performing the same level of testing on Rapid Response Content updates as it does on other updates, and its Content Validator checks didn't catch the bug that caused the global IT crash. As described in Tom Warren's recap of the events on the 19th, unlike Microsoft, Apple has in recent years restricted the access third-party developers have to the kernel of macOS. A Microsoft spokesperson said to The Wall Street Journal that it "cannot legally wall off its operating system in the same way Apple does because of an understanding it reached with the European Commission following a complaint." The European Commission disagrees, telling The Verge, "Microsoft is free to decide on its business model and to adapt its security infrastructure to respond to threats provided this is done in line with EU competition law." Bastian also derided both the flaw that caused the issue and CrowdStrike's deployment processes, saying, "If you're going to have priority access to the Delta ecosystem . . . you've gotta test this stuff. You can't come into a mission-critical, 24-7 operation and tell us, 'We have a bug.' It doesn't work." [GN] DENNY'S INC: Class Settlement in Estrada Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA ESTRADA, as individuals and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, v. DENNY'S INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00572-SPG-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnet entered an order 1. Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval and approving settlement of the action between Plaintiffs and Defendant, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate and directs the Parties to perform their settlement in accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement; 2. Granting an award to Class Counsel for $1,000,000 in attorneys' fees and $29,789.54 in costs to be paid to Class Counsel; 3. Granting an award to Plaintiff Maria Estrada for $5,000 in exchange for a general release of her individual claims and finds that this amount is warranted and reasonable; and 4. Dismissing Plaintiff's case with prejudice, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs Estrada and De Leon both worked as hourly, non-exempt employees for Denny's in one of Denny's California locations. Estrada began her employment with Defendant in 2009 and left Defendant's employment on or about March 18, 2020. She worked as a line cook at a Defendant location in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to pay the Class for all hours worked; refused to permit the Class to take rest periods, or legally compliant meal periods, or provide compensation in lieu of the entitled periods; refused to furnish to the Class itemized wage statements upon payment of wages; refused to compensate Plaintiff Estrada and some members of the Class wages due at the time of employment conclusion; failed to reimburse the Class for necessary business expenditures; and failed to provide schedules so as to reasonably ensure employees took timely rest and meal periods. S On Oct. 16, 2019, Plaintiff De Leon submitted to the State of California’s Labor Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") a Notice of Labor Code Violations by Defendant. On June 2, 2020, the Plaintiff De Leon brought a Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") representative action against Defendant for violations of the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders on behalf of the State of California and all hourly, non-exempt, aggrieved employees that worked at a California location of Defendant (the "PAGA Action"). The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class the same as defined in the FAC, namely, as "all individuals who worked for Denny's in California and classified as non-exempt, hourly employees at any location in California during the Class Period." The Settlement Agreement defines "Aggrieved Employees" as persons employed by Denny’s in California classified as a non-exempt hourly employee from October 16, 2018, to August 4, 2022 (the "PAGA Period"). Denny's Inc. operates as a restaurant. The Company offers hamburgers, steaks, sandwiches, appetizers, desserts, soups, and more. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SkGdh0 at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD W. WYATT: Hellested Sues Over Massive Data Security Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- LuzJennifer Martinez of The Valley Breeze reports that following a massive data security breach that compromised more than 13,000 detainees, vendors, and staff last November, the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility, at 950 High St., was served a class action complaint filed in U.S. District Court by plaintiff Jacob Hellested. According to the official complaint, Hellested, who filed on July 19 on behalf of "himself and others similarly situated," is seeking to obtain "damages, restitution, and injunctive relief" for everyone notified of Wyatt's data breach. The complaint identifies Hellested as a former Wyatt job applicant, but attorney Peter Wasylyk did not confirm when it was that Hellested applied for a job there. Hellested lives in Woonsocket, as stated in the complaint. In a statement regarding the data breach and ensuing complaint, Wyatt officials claim they were the victim of a cyberattack. The complaint stems from Wyatt's failure to "properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy plaintiff(s) and class members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes." Wyatt confirmed through their website that the private information of approximately "12,890 detainees, 7,618 current, potential, and former staff, and 185 outside vendors" was affected. Those affected have been subjected to a variety of crimes from data thieves, including "opening new financial accounts, taking out loans, using names to obtain government benefits, filing fraudulent tax returns, filing false medical claims, and obtaining drivers' licenses," as stated in the complaint. Hellested received his notification letter around July 1, which stated that the extracted information included his "address, cell phone number, date of birth, and Social Security number." An investigation into the breach confirmed that Wyatt's system was accessed by an "unauthorized actor" that may have copied and exfiltrated files containing the private information from Hellested and all others affected. According to the complaint, Wyatt was required to notify victims of the breach, which occurred on Nov. 3, 2023, as soon as possible. But the detention facility staff only did so as of this month, which means data thieves had the private information of affected parties in their possession for nearly eight months. As a result, the complaint finds Wyatt, as the defendant, responsible for the breach due to their "failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect" private information. "Wyatt Detention Facility has 21 days from the date upon which the complaint was served to respond," Wasylyk said. "If Wyatt requests an extension, it is negotiable between the plaintiff, Hellested, and the defendant, Wyatt." If Wyatt doesn't respond to the complaint within 21 days, then Wasylyk said they will be in default, which he emphasized almost never happens, but said he can't guarantee it won't happen in this case. Wyatt has the option to either answer the complaint or file a motion or memo to dismiss the case, according to Wasylyk. Wyatt officials said they "regret any inconvenience this attack has had on others. We quickly took steps to minimize its impact, and eligible individuals are entitled to receive free credit monitoring at the facility's expense. Because this case is currently in litigation, we have no further comment." [GN] DXC TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Suit Over 17% Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against DXC Technology Company ("DXC" or the "Company") (NYSE:DXC) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired DXC common stock between May 26, 2021, and May 16, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until October 1, 2024 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants misrepresented its ongoing "transformation journey" and the Company's ability to integrate previously acquired companies and business systems. While touting its ongoing success in implementing that integration, DXC repeatedly stressed its commitment to reducing the Company's restructuring and transaction, separation, and integration ("TSI") costs in order to increase its free cashflow and "unleash [its] true earnings power." In truth, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the Company was only able to reduce its restructuring and TSI costs by limiting its integration efforts. The complaint alleges that on August 3, 2022, DXC reported disappointing first quarter results, despite having reiterated its guidance just six weeks prior. DXC blamed its poor performance on the fact that its "cost optimization efforts have moved at a slower pace than anticipated." These disclosures caused the price of DXC common stock to decline by 17%, from $31.52 per share to $26.15 per share. Then, on May 16, 2024, DXC's CEO admitted that "the previous restructurings did not set a real, clean, solid, fully integrated baseline for profitable growth" because the systems that were acquired over time were "never integrated, never deduped," and admitted that the Company was "not [a] fully functional organization." DXC also announced it would need to spend an additional $250 million to achieve the restructuring and integration process it falsely claimed to have been successfully implementing during the Class Period. These disclosures caused the price of DXC common stock to decline nearly 17%, from $19.88 per share to $16.52 per share. If you purchased or otherwise acquired DXC shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Brandon Walker, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Telephone: (212) 355-4648 E-mail: investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] EMBANET-COMPASS KNOWLEDGE: Marquez WARN Act Suit Seeks Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS MARQUEZ, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EMBANET-COMPASS KNOWLEDGE GROUP INC. d/b/a BOUNDLESS LEARNING, Case No. 6:23-cv-02467-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of former employees of the Defendant whose rights under the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act) were violated. Specifically, the class Plaintiff seeks to certify is defined as: Boundless Learning WARN Act Class Action: "All former employees of Defendant throughout the United States, who worked at, reported to, or received assignments from the Defendant's "Acquisitions and Retention" department as part of its previous iteration's Online Program Management division and were not given a minimum of 60 days' written notice of termination, and whose employment was terminated on or about Aug. 16, 2023, or within 30 days thereof, as a result of a "mass layoff" or "plant closing" as defined by the WARN Act. The Court should appoint Named Plaintiff, Alexis Marquez, as Class Representative; appoint undersigned counsel as class counsel; and, finally, allow the undersigned to notify the class members with a Court-approved notice. Since all employees were remote at the time of the layoffs/terminations and the proposed Class Representative, Alexis Marquez, worked for Defendant and lives in this District, maintaining this action in this Court is appropriate. Concentrating all the potential litigation concerning the rights of Plaintiff and the Putative Class in this Court will avoid a multiplicity of suits, will conserve judicial resources and the resources of the parties, and is the most efficient means of resolving the claims. Predominance is satisfied. The Defendant terminated the employment of the Named Plaintiff and other members of the OPM division who did not voluntarily resign on Aug. 16, 2023, or within 30 days thereafter. The Defendant admits that there were between one hundred and two hundred individuals terminated within 30 days of August 16, 2023, from Defendant's OPM division. Embanet-Compass designs "workforce-aligned experiences" for "organizations and corporations around the world" and has launched "more than 450 online programs with Pearson Online Learning Services." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DDM6R6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com ENPHASE ENERGY: Hayes Alleges Breaches of Federal Securities Laws ----------------------------------------------------------------- WAYNE HAYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENPHASE ENERGY, INC., BADRINARAYANAN KOTHANDARAMAN and MANDY YANG, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-04249 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2024) seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. Plaintiff Hayes brings this federal securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase securities between December 12, 2022 and April 25, 2023, inclusive. During the said period, the Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of material fact about Enphase's business to the market; namely, Defendants failed to disclose that battery shipments were slowing, the Company was suffering from a lower transition rate in California and a slower output of inverters, and Defendants trumpeted Enphase's Arizona and Florida's microinverter deployments when they were being harmed by rising interest rates, says the suit. Enphase is an energy technology company that designs, develops, manufactures, and sells solar micro-inverters, battery energy storage and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in the United States and internationally. Its securities traded on the NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbol “ENPH.” [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. Burke, Esq. THE BURKE LAW FIRM 1001 Wilshire Boulevard, #2187 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 984-7199 Facsimile: (310) 602-6589 E-mail: tim.burke@burke-law-firm.com EPISCOPE COMPANIES: Godinez Sues for Breach of Sick Leave Ordinance ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANNA GODINEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPISCOPE COMPANIES, LLC d/b/a EPISCOPE HOSPITALITY, EPISCOPE MART, LLC, THEMART TOTS, LLC d/b/a MARSHALL'S LANDING, and DMK MICHIGAN AVE., LLC d/b/a EXHANGE 224 S. MICHIGAN AVE., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05968 (N.D. Ill. July 15,2024) arises from Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff and others with sick leave in accordance with the terms of the Chicago Sick Leave Ordinance. In line with their unlawful policy, the Defendants refused to allow Plaintiff to utilize her available sick leave to care for her dying mother, retaliated against her for attempting to utilize that sick leave, and discriminated against her due to her association with her dying mother and the expense related thereto, among other reasons. This conduct was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Sick Leave Ordinance. The Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages for unpaid sick leave, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the ADA and Chicago Sick Leave Ordinance, and any other relief deemed just, proper, and equitable under the law. Episcope Companies, LLC is a hospitality management and advisory company with locations in Chicago, New York, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Houston. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Luisi, Esq. LUISI HOLZ LAW 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 639-4478 E-mail: LuisiL@luisiholzlaw.com ESO SOLUTIONS: Court Narrows Claims in Jones Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones v. ESO Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01557-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Robert Pitman entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part ESO's Motion to Dismiss. ESO's motion is granted as to Plaintiffs' claims for lost time, heightened risk, diminished value of PII/PHI, loss of benefit of the bargain, declaratory and injunctive relief, negligence per se, breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary, unjust enrichment, and deceptive trade practices; and -- denying ESO's Motion to Strike Class Allegations. Having reviewed the Plaintiffs' complaint, the Court finds that it would be premature to strike Plaintiffs' class allegations and will instead decide the matter when the Plaintiffs move to certify a class. On Sept. 28, 2023, ESO detected a data breach of its computer systems. Its notice letter, sent to victims of the breach, states that an "unauthorized third party may have acquired personal data during this incident." The Plaintiffs filed suit on Dec. 21, 2023, as a putative class of victims of the ESO data breach. On March 28, 2024, ESO moved to dismiss the complaint. ESO is a software company that provides services for hospitals and healthcare facilities. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hXiBDG at no extra charge.[CC] FANDUEL INC: Unlawfully Gathers Website Users' Info, Mitchener Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- COURTNEY MITCHENER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANDUEL, INC. and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06410 (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, Defendant Fanduel installed a software created by TikTok on its website in order to identify website visitors. The TikTok Software gathers device and browser information, geographic information, referral tracking, and url tracking by running code or scripts on the website to send user details to TikTok. The TikTok Software begins to collect information the moment a user lands on the website. Thus, even though the website has a cookie banner the information has already been sent to TikTok regarding the user's visit. Defendant Fanduel did not obtain the Plaintiff's and Class members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization, says the suit. Fanduel, Inc. is an operator of an online platform that offers sports betting, fantasy league drafts, and casino games, doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Narain Kumar, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Email: robert@taulersmith.com nkumar@taulersmith.com FITNESS ASSOCIATES: Gilewicz Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fitness Associates Inc., et al. The case is styled as Thomas Gilewicz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Fitness Associates Inc. D/B/A Fitness Associates of Pittsfield LLC; Planet Fitness Franchising LLC; Planet Fitness Holdings LLC; Pla-Fit Franchising LLC; Planet Fitness Inc.; Keystone NFP Pittsfield LLC; Case No. 2476CV00113 (Mass. Super. Ct., Berkshire Cty., July 30, 2024). The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases." Planet Fitness clubs -- https://www.planetfitness.com/ -- offer tons of equipment, free training, a clean and welcoming gym, and affordable memberships.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian McNiff, Esq. LAMOTHE, MCNIFF, RELETHFORD 2 Margin St PO Box 4526 Salem, MA 01970 Phone: (978) 807-6544 FIVE BELOW: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Information ---------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Below, Inc. ("Five Below," or "FIVE4") (NASDAQ: FIVE). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants provided investors with false and/or materially misleading information about FIVE's financial strength and operations, including its outlook for the first quarter and full year 2024. If you bought shares of Five Below between March 20, 2024 and July 16, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at http://holzerlaw.com/case/five-below/to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is September 30, 2024. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] FLORIDA: Judge Suggests Medicaid Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Jackie LLanos, writing for Florida Phoenix, reports that the federal judge handling the class action filed by clients kicked off Medicaid by Florida state agencies following the end of the COVID emergency warned both sides Friday, August 2, that neither would be happy with her ruling and suggested they discuss a settlement. "I don't think either one of you is going to be totally thrilled," U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard said as she exited the courtroom on the last day of the bench trial. The judge, appointed by George W. Bush, suggested that the attorneys could come up with a better solution to the dispute, which involves notices the state sends people when they lose Medicaid benefits. During testimony this week, Morales Howard asked state employees how the Florida Department of Children and Families figures out Medicaid eligibility and notifies people when their benefits end. On the last day of the trial, she didn't appear convinced by an estimate from Deloitte, the contractor handling the system, that it would take 28,000 hours to update Medicaid termination notices to include case-specific information. A rushed estimate The estimated time required to make such changes, which would give Floridians more insight into information DCF uses to determine whether they qualify for Medicaid, is more than double the number of hours the state pays Deloitte to maintain the system annually, according to evidence presented on Friday. The consulting company took two days to come up with the estimate. Hari Kallumkal, the Deloitte manager who works with DCF, said the state's use of technology from the 1980s would make the process take longer. But he also testified that his team usually has more time to create estimates such as the one at issue here. Kallumkal was the last witness in case filed by Floridians arguing the notices revoking Medicaid benefits are confusing and lack enough information to allow them to appeal their loss of coverage. "There was not a lot of time for us to do this," Kallumkal said, referring to conversations Deloitte employees have with DCF before coming up with the number of hours required to complete the project. He added: "I believe it was kind of rushed." Deloitte produced a alternative estimate, at the request of DCF, that it would take 12,000 hours to add income information to notices. Attorneys defending DCF and the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration used Kallumkal's and state employees' testimony to argue that the changes plaintiffs requested in the suit would burden the state. Other notices DCF sends clients include personalized information, such as income limits for food stamps, said Sarah Grusin, an attorney with the National Health Law Program representing the plaintiffs. She displayed evidence that Deloitte is working to add people's income information to notices in Oregon. "There is no other state that runs an older system like Florida," Kallumkal replied. More problems Aside from changes to the notices, the plaintiffs want everyone the state kicked out of Medicaid without proper notice to get their benefits back. Attorneys for the state estimate it would cost $87 million per month to do so, according to a filing in the case. During the trial, an AHCA official placed the cost at $313 per person per month, although his estimate didn't discount the portion the federal government would have to pay. Testimony from DCF employees and documentary evidence has highlighted problems Floridians faced while DCF reviewed the Medicaid eligibility of millions after the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, during which the federal government required states to keep people enrolled regardless of income. Errors by the agency and its Deloitte-operated system led to children and postpartum women losing health care coverage to which they were legally entitled. The problems have persisted this year. DCF blocked more than half of the calls from people trying to speak with a real person this April, according to evidence presented. "These are constituents, hard-working Floridians who are trying to get access to care," Acadia Jacob, Florida Voices for Health's advocacy director, told Florida Phoenix in a phone interview. "Their lives are too busy to spend as much time as they're being forced to on the DCF hotline." Problems stemming from Deloitte Medicaid systems are happening across the country, according to an investigation from KFF. In fact, the National Health Law Program filed a complaint against the consulting giant with the Federal Trade Commission in January, according to KFF. In Florida, people couldn't access their unemployment benefits in 2020 because of a failure in the Delloite system, Politico previously reported. [GN] FULTON BANK: Gutzmirtl Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees -------------------------------------------------------- MIRO ANTON GUTZMIRTL JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FULTON BANK, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-03067 (E.D. Pa., July 15, 2024) arises from Defendant's routine policy and practice of charging its customers Overdraft Fees (OD Fees) on transactions that did not overdraw an account. Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for debit card transactions at the time those transactions are authorized, the Defendant later assesses OD Fees on those same transactions when they purportedly settle days later into a negative balance. These types of transactions are Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative Transactions, or "APPSN Transactions," says the suit. Fulton Bank is headquartered in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and has more than 200 branches and ATMs across Central Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6486 E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielgold.com sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com GENERAL MILLS: Cereal & Cocoa Products "Unsafe," Melendez Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANTE MELENDEZ and DESTINY MORRISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-03040-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., July 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, strict liability, negligent failure to warn, negligent design & formulation defect, and negligence. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of chocolate flavored Cocoa Puffs cereal, Cocoa Puffs Treat Cereal Bars, Cocoa Puffs Soft Bake Oat Bars, Cocoa Puffs Brownie Crunch Cereal & Cocoa Puffs Minis Cereal. Through marketing and sale, the Defendant represented that the products are safe and effective for people, especially children, to consume. Unfortunately, the products are unfit for their intended consumption because they contain high levels of lead. The Plaintiffs purchased the products while lacking the knowledge that the products could poison those who consumed them, thus causing serious harm to those who use such products. The Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable remedies as a result of the Defendant's misconduct. General Mills, Inc. is a processed food manufacturer based in Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chad Alexander, Esq. SIEBEN POLK Eagan Woods Office Center 2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 50 Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (651)-437-3148 Email: CAlexander@siebenpolklaw.com cjohnson@siebenpolklaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Email: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com HAWX LLC: Faces Esposito Labor Suit in Cal. Super. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burlingame Industries, Inc. The suit is captioned as Juan Manuel Espinoza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Burlingame Industries, Inc., a California General Stock Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0008383 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin County, July 17, 2024). The suit arises from the Defendant's alleged labor law violation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP HOME & HEALTH: Discovery Related to Class Status Closed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gloria Mallett, v. Home & Health Care Management, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01217-KJM-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order directing the plaintiff to show cause within 14 days why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Plaintiff's counsel timely responded to the order to show cause. In the response, counsel explains the reason for plaintiff's lack of action in this case "is due to a series of missteps from [counsel's] firm," which resulted in the court's scheduling order not being submitted to the firm's calendar. Counsel declares the firm has taken "a number of actions designed to prevent this from happening again." Counsel concedes "[i]t is entirely appropriate for the Court to dismiss the class allegations" but requests the court "allow the action to move forward on an individual basis with a short timetable." The court finds the response is sufficient to discharge the order to show cause. Accordingly, the order to show cause is discharged. Discovery related to class certification is closed. In light of the completion of discovery related to class certification and counsel's response, the court sets a status conference for Sept. 12, 2024 at 2:30 pm in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before the undersigned. The parties shall meet and confer and file a Joint Status Report by Aug. 29, 2024, informing the court of the status of this case. In their Joint Status Report, the parties may include information on whether they seek to amend the scheduling order and seek an extension of the class certification discovery deadlines, which, as noted, have already passed. The parties may also propose dates for a case schedule to move forward with plaintiff's individual claim. Home & Health provides professional healthcare and wellness services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zFBFlv at no extra charge.[CC] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bal Sues Over Defective Tow Hitch Wiring ------------------------------------------------------- Dana Jaye Bal, Donald Michael Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:24-cv-01657 (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2024), is brought seeking relief for themselves and classes of similarly situated Texas and Missouri consumers because at the time of sale, the Class Vehicles contained defective tow hitch wiring harness modules that cause the vehicles to catch on fire, which Hyundai failed to repair within a reasonable period of time. Hyundai sold Plaintiffs and class members defective 2020-2022 Hyundai Palisade vehicles (the "Class Vehicles") that that contain tow hitch wiring harness modules that catch on fire. The ability to tow was the reason why Plaintiffs and other class members decided to buy or lease the Class Vehicles over the competition. However, the Class Vehicles' tow wiring harness modules contain one or more defects causing the modules to suffer from an electrical short circuit and catch fire ("Tow Harness Module Defect"). Hyundai initially directed the Class Vehicles' owners and lessees to park their vehicles outside and away from structures and to return their vehicles to Hyundai dealerships to implement an interim fix: remove a fuse to cut the power to the tow wiring harness module. But this merely disables rather than repairs the tow wiring harness modules; without power supplied through the tow hitch wiring harness module, the turn and brake signals do not work. As a result, tens of thousands of Class Vehicles that were equipped with the optional tow package can no longer use their vehicles to tow, as the tow package has been rendered useless due to the "fix." Hyundai has failed to repair or replace the defective tow wiring harness modules in Class Vehicles within a reasonable time. As a result, many Class Vehicle owners have been forced to pay for after market solutions to restore their cars' ability to tow. Moreover, the recall does not provide Plaintiffs or class members with adequate relief. Indeed, aside from providing another belated repair attempt, Hyundai has not offered to compensate Class Vehicles' owners for the diminished value of the vehicles due to the defect or for their loss of use damages arising from the inability to tow, nor has it offered to reimburse owners or lessees for any out-of-pocket expenses. Hyundai's sale of the defective Class Vehicles and failure to repair within a reasonable amount of time constitute a breach of its express warranty as well as the implied warranty of merchantability and gives rise to a claim for unjust enrichment. To remedy Hyundai's unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs, on behalf of the proposed class members, seek damages and restitution from Hyundai, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased vehicles from the Defendants. Hyundai Motor America designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and leases passenger vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, nationwide and in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trinette G. Kent, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 1100 West Town & Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (480) 247-9644 Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com INDIVIOR PLC: Faces Class Suit Over Violations of Securities Laws ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Indivior PLC ("Indivior" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INDV) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division), and docketed under 24-cv-00554, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Indivior securities between February 22, 2024 and July 8, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officers. If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Indivior securities during the Class Period, you have until October 1, 2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Indivior is a global pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, and markets drugs to treat opioid use disorders ("OUD") and serious mental illnesses. Indivior's flagship drug is SUBLOCADE, a monthly injection used to treat moderate to severe OUD. In 2023, sales of SUBLOCADE generated net revenue of $630 million, which accounted for 58% of Indivior's net revenue in 2023. Indivior also sells PERSERIS, which is an injection to treat schizophrenia in U.S. adults. In 2023, PERSERIS sales generated net revenue of $42 million. In October 2023, Indivior launched OPVEE, a nasal spray to reverse opioid overdoses on an emergency basis. In February 2024, Indivior announced its fourth quarter and full year ("FY") 2023 results and provided the following net revenue guidance for FY 2024: (i) net revenue guidance in a range of $1.24-$1.33 billion; (ii) SUBLOCADE net revenue guidance in a range of $820-$880 million; (iii) OPVEE net revenue guidance in a range of $15-$25 million; and (iv) PERSERIS net revenue guidance in a range of $55-$65 million. Indivior reaffirmed the foregoing net revenue guidance, in whole or in part, multiple times in April, May, and June 2024. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants (i) grossly overstated their ability to forecast the negative impact of certain legislation on the financial prospects of Indivior products, which forecasting ability was far less capable and effective than Defendants had led investors and analysts to believe; (ii) overstated the financial prospects of SUBLOCADE, PERSERIS and OPVEE, and thus overstated the Company's anticipated revenue and other financial metrics; (iii) knew or recklessly disregarded that because of the negative impact of certain legislation on the financial prospects of Indivior's products, Indivior was unlikely to meet its own previously issued and repeatedly reaffirmed FY 2024 net revenue guidance, including its FY 2024 net revenue guidance for SUBLOCADE, PERSERIS and OPVEE; (iv) knew or recklessly disregarded that Indivior was at a significant risk of, and/or was likely to, cease all sales and marketing activities related to PERSERIS; and (v) knew or recklessly disregarded that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 9, 2024, Indivior issued a press release "announc[ing] a business update encompassing [its] outlook for [second quarter ('Q2')] and FY 2024 financial performance" ("July 9 Update"). The July 9 Update reduced FY 2024 (i) total net revenue guidance to $1.15-$1.215 billion from the previous range of $1.24-$1.33 billion; (ii) SUBLOCADE net revenue guidance to $765-$805 million from the previous range of $820-$880 million; and (iii) OPVEE net revenue guidance to $9-14 million from the previous range of $15-25 million. The July 9 Update also shockingly advised that the Company would immediately cease all sales and marketing activities related to PERSERIS. The July 9 Update explained that the reduction in guidance of SUBLOCADE net revenue for FY 2024 resulted in major part from accelerated Medicaid disenrollments at the end of Q2 2024. The July 9 Update further explained that the cessation of the marketing and sale of PERSERIS was due to the highly competitive market "and impending changes that are expected to intensify payor management in the treatment category in which PERSERIS participates," which led the Company to conclude that "there is no longer a path forward for PERSERIS that is financially viable." Finally, the expected adoption of OPVEE had lagged expectations. Upon the above news and further commentary by Defendants on a subsequent conference call, Indivior's stock price fell $5.15 per share, or 33.57%, to close at $10.19 per share on July 9, 2024. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Telephone: (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 E-mail: dpeyton@pomlaw.com [GN] INDIVIOR PLC: Faces Herbst Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- HERBST CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. INDIVIOR PLC, MARK CROSSLEY, and RYAN PREBLICK, Case No. 3:24-cv-00554-HEH (E.D. Va., Aug. 2, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Indivior securities between Feb. 22, 2024, and July 8, 2024, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In October 2023, Indivior launched OPVEE, a nasal spray to reverse opioid overdoses on an emergency basis. In February 2024, Indivior announced its fourth quarter and full year 2023 results and provided the following net revenue guidance for FY 2024: (i) net revenue guidance in a range of $1.24-$1.33 billion; (ii) SUBLOCADE net revenue guidance in a range of $820-$880 million; (iii) OPVEE net revenue guidance in a range of $15-$25 million; and (iv) PERSERIS net revenue guidance in a range of $55-$65 million. Indivior reaffirmed the foregoing net revenue guidance, in whole or in part, multiple times in April, May, and June 2024. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants grossly overstated their ability to forecast the negative impact of certain legislation on the financial prospects of Indivior products, which forecasting ability was far less capable and effective than Defendants had led investors and analysts to believe. The July 9, 2024 Update explained that the reduction in guidance of SUBLOCADE net revenue for FY 2024 resulted in major part from accelerated Medicaid disenrollments at the end of Q2 2024. Finally, the expected adoption of OPVEE had lagged expectations. Upon the above news and further commentary by Defendants on a subsequent conference call, Indivior's stock price fell $5.15 per share, or 33.57%, to close at $10.19 per share on July 9. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Indivior is a global pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, and markets drugs to treat opioid use disorders ("OUD") and serious mental illnesses. Indivior's flagship drug is SUBLOCADE, a monthly injection used to treat moderate to severe OUD. In 2023, sales of SUBLOCADE generated net revenue of $630 million, which accounted for 58% of Indivior's net revenue in 2023. Indivior also sells PERSERIS, which is an injection to treat schizophrenia in U.S. adults. In 2023, PERSERIS sales generated net revenue of $42 million.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dsommers@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq. WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP 25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G Monsey, NY 10952 Telephone: (845) 290-6818 Facsimile: (718) 504-3773 E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Field Workers, Murras Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MIKE MURRAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, (Mass. Super., July 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for improper prevailing wage deductions and unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Law and the Massachusetts Overtime Act. Mr. Murras has been employed by the Defendant as a field worker from approximately August 2022 through the present. Insituform Technologies, LLC is a construction company in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Shafran, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 723-7700 Facsimile: (617) 227-0313 Email: ashafran@rflawyers.com INTEL CORP: Abington Cole Investigates Chip Instability Issues -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Ridley of PC Gamer reports that a law firm is investigating the possibility of a class action lawsuit against Intel for the ongoing 13th and 14th Gen CPU instability issues. Abington Cole + Ellery has published a webpage noting the possible class action lawsuit against the computer chip giant, a link to which is currently at the top of the r/Intel subreddit. It asks for anyone affected to submit their information via a form. The form asks two simple questions: (1) Have you purchased an Intel Core 13th or 14th Generation processor, or a computer containing one of these processors, and (2) Have you experienced any problems with an Intel Core 13th or 14th Generation processor? Intel has admitted an issue with its chips. It said of the "instability issues" last week: "... we have determined that elevated operating voltage is causing instability issues in some 13th/14th Gen desktop processors. Our analysis of returned processors confirms that the elevated operating voltage stems from a microcode algorithm resulting in incorrect voltage requests to the processor." Though Intel has promised a patch for the issue, arriving later this month, it does not expect this patch to prevent any issues stemming from damage already done to the chips. So, there's without a doubt an instability issue and plenty of anecdotal evidence for many potential claims from customers. Also, resulting damage to chips from faults unbeknownst to the user is irreversible. All of which could form the basis of a class action lawsuit if a law firm were interested in taking it on. However, Intel has already offered to replace all damaged CPUs. If Intel can be shown to be honouring this offer, and making it easy for RMAs of a rather nebulous crashing issue, then a class action lawsuit may come up short. Intel's RMA service is a mixed bag, according to places like Reddit. You'll find threads over multiple years claiming it's awesome, followed by others claiming it's absolute trash. Hey ho, thus is the world. Though the important thing here is that Intel is taking claims of wobbly 13th/14th Gen CPUs and treating them seriously, and taking appropriate action to get them replaced. You'll find mixed claims of whether it's doing that, too. One user in response to the class action lawsuit thread says they can confirm they are honouring the warranty, and note that Intel offered to send them a new CPU prior to receiving the old one. This coming with a $25 refundable charge. Others report they've sent in their old one and are yet to receive a new one, with no charge. Whether Intel offers this same warranty to customers with tray processors (those ordered in bulk by businesses but sometimes sold individually for a small discount versus a boxed model to individuals) is often debated in these threads. Intel has covered this in its most recent guidance, which suggests they are: "Intel is committed to making sure all customers who have or are currently experiencing instability symptoms on their 13th and/or 14th Gen desktop processors are supported in the exchange process. To help streamline the support process, Intel's guidance is as follows: For users who purchased 13th/14th Gen-powered desktop systems from OEM/System Integrator - please reach out to your system vendor's customer support team for further assistance. For users who purchased boxed/tray 13th/14th Gen desktop processors - please reach out to Intel Customer Support for further assistance." The other question is what customers should even do once they receive a new chip, as it's also likely to be affected by the issues prior to the microcode update. Generally, it's recommended to keep the voltage low and slice off a couple hundred megahertz off the clock speeds, just to ensure the chip remains stable and in normal working order until the microcode update is released. Admittedly, it doesn't feel great doing this on a $500 Core i9 -- that clock speed is often what you paid extra for. And if you're wondering whether a class action lawsuit is in your interest, Nvidia once fought a class action for the VRAM allotment on the GTX 970, an extremely popular model of graphics card for anyone not already familiar. By the end of the case, customers received a $30 settlement for each GTX 970 bought, which is, er, a rather small sum for the hassle. You didn't have to sign up for the class action originally to claim once the settlement had been agreed, either. But hey, $30 is $30, though you'll notice these cases only apply to residents of the US. [GN] INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HAMMOND, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1408, et al., Longshoremen's Association, Local 1408 et al, Case No. 3:23-cv-01450-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered a case management and scheduling order and referral to mediation as follows: Deadline for moving to join a party or amend Sept. 3, 2024 the pleadings. Deadline for moving for class certification. Dec. 2, 2024 Deadline for disclosing expert reports. Plaintiff: June 2, 2025 Defendant: June 16, 2025 Rebuttal: July 16, 2025 Deadline for completing discovery and filing Aug. 4, 2025 motions to compel. Deadline for filing dispositive and Daubert Sept. 4, 2025 motions (responses due 21 days after service). Mediation Deadline: June 16, 2025 Deadline for filing all other motions including Dec. 29, 2025 motions in limine. Deadline for filing the joint final pretrial. Jan. 12, 2026 Statement. Date and time of the final pretrial conference. Jan. 20, 2026 10:00 A.M. Trial Term Begins Feb. 2, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G0iiXu at no extra charge.[CC] INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: Conditional Status of Class Action Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANICK ST. CHARLES, and all others similarly-situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (B), v. INTERNATIONAL SECURITY GUARD SERVICES, INC. FENEL LUXAMA AND WILMENE DORVIL; Case No. 1:24-cv-22063-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: a) Conditionally certifying a collective action of current and former International Security Guard Services, Inc. who worked for the Defendants starting April 1, 2024 and who were not paid wages or overtime compensation for their hours worked over 40 each week; and b) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to satisfy this Court that there exist other International Security Guard Services, Inc. employees who were part of a common policy or practice of being paid on a per diem basis. This is a collective action to enforce the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Lead Plaintiff, and other similarly situated individuals performed work for the Defendants commencing on April 1, 2024, and the Defendants failed to pay them wages and overtime, with the exception of minor partial payments. On May 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that she and the other security guards who worked for the Defendant were subjected to a common practice or policy of the Defendant to refuse to pay the earned wages and overtime. International Security is a full-service provider of security-related services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WgNS9U at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Claudio R. Cedrez, Esq. CLAUDIO R CEDREZ LLC 11098 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 100A Miami, FL 33161 Telephone: (305) 763-8678 Facsimile: (786) 664-6596 E-mail: eservice@cedrezlaw.com J&C AMBULANCE: Kara Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARA FIRST, et al., v. J&C AMBULANCE SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03296-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class for Count VI in the Complaint, which alleges a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA): "All persons for whom the following are true: (i) who were enrolled in American EMS, LLC's group health, vision, or dental plans as of Aug. 31, 2020, either as an employee of the company or as the dependent of an employee; (ii) who were not hired by J&C Ambulance, Inc. or allowed to enroll in its group health, vision, or dental plans; and (iii) who did not receive timely notice of their right to elect continued group health, dental, or vision plan coverage under COBRA." On Feb. 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action on Count VI alleging violations of COBRA's continuation notice requirements. On May 6, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion over two concerns: (a) confirmation that Defendant J&C Ambulance, Inc. bought all of Defendant American EMS, LLC's assets; and (b) that Plaintiffs may not have the correct class members because their enrollment lists were from 2019 instead of as Aug. 31, 2020, when the asset purchase occurred. The Plaintiffs have included a proposed notice to class members for the Court's consideration if it certifies the class. The notice also includes an opt-out exclusion form if class members wish to be excluded and pursue their own claims. If the Court certifies the class, Plaintiffs’ counsel are willing to meet and confer with defense counsel on any potential revisions to the proposed notice and opt-out exclusion form J&C offers emergency and scheduled medical transportation, ventilating, and managed patient care services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JrcDld at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason E. Starling, Esq. WILLIS SPANGLER STARLING 4635 Trueman Boulevard, Suite 100 Hilliard, OH 43026 Telephone: (614) 586-7915 Facsimile: (614) 586-7901 E-mail: jstarling@willisattorneys.com - and - John C. Camillus, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 558-7254 Facsimile: (614) 559-6731 E-mail: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com JASPER COUNTY, SC: Davis Bid for Summary Judgment Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Heather Nicole Davis, v. Jasper County, Case No. 9:21-cv-03964-BHH (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks entered an order: -- denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and -- granting Jasper County's motion for summary judgment Accordingly, the Court finds no genuine dispute that Plaintiff qualified for the partial overtime exemption under section 7(k) of the FLSA In sum, the Court finds in favor of the County on this issue and holds that Plaintiff was "responsible" for fire suppression under § 203(y) during her employment with the County. The Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendant, alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff is a former employee of Jasper County's county-wide combination fire and rescue service. During her employment, she was a certified firefighter and paramedic, and her official title was "Firefighter/Paramedic." According to Plaintiff, "only a sliver [of her job] was fire-related and only a few [of the calls that she responded to] were situations where life, property or environment were at risk." The Plaintiff contends that her simultaneous and majority service as emergency medical personnel defeats the partial exemption from the FLSA’s overtime requirements for "employee[s] in fire protection services," entitling her to overtime pay for all hours worked each week in excess of 40. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tzTc2w at no extra charge.[CC] JEFF ZMUDA: Lockett Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER LOCKETT, v. JEFF ZMUDA, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-03072-JWL (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge John Lungstrum entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; -- granting the Plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. -- granting the Plaintiff until Aug. 30, 2024, in which to show good cause, in writing to the undersigned, why Plaintiff's Complaint should not be dismissed; and -- granting the Plaintiff until Aug. 30, 2024, in which to file a complete and proper amended complaint to cure all the discussed deficiencies; The Clerk is directed to send section 1983 forms and instructions to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff defines the class as "all presently incarcerated at Topeka Correctional Women's Facility in which the group characteristics of class a [sic] whole have commonality and typicality and the class will demonstrate individual characteristics of the 'Named Plaintiff' in relation to the class." The Plaintiff Kora L. Liles is required to show good cause, in writing to the undersigned, why this action should not be dismissed due to the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Complaint that are discussed herein. Plaintiff is also given the opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. The Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Topeka Correctional Facility in Topeka, Kansas. The Court grants Plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference in Count I of her Complaint, due to "exposure to mold, fungus, toxins, etc. without proper ventilation." The Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants Zmuda and Hook are aware of the presence of mold and toxins, and are aware of actual current and potential detrimental effects of the mold, toxins, sewer gas and of inadequate ventilation." The Plaintiff states that inmates are exposed to mold, toxins, and fungus growth inside cells, showers, dayrooms, and the cafeteria without having adequate ventilation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wUl0O7 at no extra charge.[CC] JEFF ZMUDA: Spencer Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICAELA LEA SPENCER, v. JEFF ZMUDA, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-03071-JWL (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge John Lungstrum entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; -- granting the Plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. -- granting the Plaintiff until Aug. 30, 2024, in which to show good cause, in writing to the undersigned, why Plaintiff's Complaint should not be dismissed; and -- granting the Plaintiff until Aug. 30, 2024, in which to file a complete and proper amended complaint to cure all the discussed deficiencies; The Clerk is directed to send section 1983 forms and instructions to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff defines the class as "all presently incarcerated at Topeka Correctional Women's Facility in which the group characteristics of class a [sic] whole have commonality and typicality and the class will demonstrate individual characteristics of the 'Named Plaintiff' in relation to the class." The Plaintiff Kora L. Liles is required to show good cause, in writing to the undersigned, why this action should not be dismissed due to the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Complaint that are discussed herein. Plaintiff is also given the opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. The Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Topeka Correctional Facility in Topeka, Kansas. The Court grants Plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference in Count I of her Complaint, due to "exposure to mold, fungus, toxins, etc. without proper ventilation." The Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants Zmuda and Hook are aware of the presence of mold and toxins, and are aware of actual current and potential detrimental effects of the mold, toxins, sewer gas and of inadequate ventilation." The Plaintiff states that inmates are exposed to mold, toxins, and fungus growth inside cells, showers, dayrooms, and the cafeteria without having adequate ventilation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pG5Gxl at no extra charge.[CC] JEFF ZMUDA: Younger Suit Dismissed as Duplicative ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLEY YOUNGER, et al., v. JEFF ZMUDA, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-03091-JWL (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge John Lungstrum entered an order that claims in this case are duplicative of the claims each Plaintiff has filed in their own pending case. -- The case is dismissed as duplicative. The Plaintiffs' motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied as moot. -- The motion for class certification is denied. -- The Plaintiffs' motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied as moot. The Court denies the motion for class certification: based on the reasoning set forth in the order denying their motion for joinder in the Stauch case; based on the fact that Plaintiffs are all prisoners proceeding pro se; based on the fact that Plaintiffs have pending individual cases based on the same claims that are subject to dismissal; and based on the same reasoning set forth in the orders denying class certification in their individual cases. The Plaintiffs brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The Plaintiffs Kimberley Younger, Barbara Frantz, Kora L. Liles, Micaela Lea Spencer, Sharon Huddleston, and Jennifer Lockett, are all inmates at the Topeka Correctional Facility in Topeka, Kansas ("TCF"). They purport to bring a class action against defendants Secretary of Corrections Jeff Zmuda, TCF Warden Donna Hook, and Aramark Food Services. They have filed a motion for class certification and motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have violated their Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide a sanitary, safe, and healthy environment. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs move for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, defining the class as all inmates presently incarcerated at TCF. These same Plaintiffs previously sought to join the action in Stauch v. Zmuda, Case No. 24-3027-JWL (D. Kan.). In that case, the Court considered the Motion for Joinder and Motion for Appointment of Counsel filed by these same Plaintiffs. The Court found that any request for joinder was premature until the complaint in the Stauch case had been screened following submission of the Martinez Report ordered in that case. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iJc4fk at no extra charge.[CC] JEFFERSON STREET HOTEL: Olekaibe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Street Hotel, LLC. The case is styled as Ruth Olekaibe, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Jefferson Street Hotel, LLC dba AC Hotel by Marriott Oakland Downtown, Emma Geesaman, Case No. 24CV085382 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 30, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Jefferson Street Hotel, LLC doing business as The AC Hotel Oakland Downtown offers a unique blend of high-quality, timeless European design and comfort.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205-1218 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: r.shkodnik@d.law JP MORGAN: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lasharon Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Case No. 2024CH05743 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06560. The State Court Action arises from Plaintiff's purported claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). In particular, Plaintiff alleges that JPMC violated BIPA by allegedly failing to develop a public written policy for the retention and destruction of biometric identifiers and biometric information, in violation of the BIPA; allegedly collecting Plaintiff's biometric identifiers or biometric information without providing notice and obtaining her written consent, in violation of the BIPA; and allegedly disclosing or disseminating Plaintiff's biometric identifiers or biometric information to third parties, in violation of the BIPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. Colin P. Buscarini, Esq. Joseph Dunklin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Email: eturin@mcgpc.com cbuscarini@mcgpc.com Jdunklin@mcgpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael R. Phillips, Esq. Katharine P. Lennox, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60601-1818 Phone: (312) 849-8100 Facsimile: (312) 849-3690 Email: mphillips@mcguirewoods.com klennox@mcguirewoods.com JP MORGAN: Milan Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Keir Milan, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and Keirco, Inc., a corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, DBA CHASE BANK; and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2024CUBC026141 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06323. The Plaintiffs' Complaint purports to seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief, public injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest for the following claims: violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California Civil Code; violation of the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"), California Business & Professions Code; violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business & Professions Code; and breach of contract.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julia B, Strickland, Esq. Julieta Stepanyan, Esq. Brianna M, Bauer, Esq. STEPTOE LLP 2029 Century Park East, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086 Phone: 213-439-9400 Facsimile: 213-439-9598 KEN'S FOODS: Austin Seeks Conditional Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID AUSTIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KEN'S FOODS, INC., the Case No. 4:24-cv-40040-MRG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective; (2) Requiring Defendant to identify all putative collective members by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and importable format within ten (10) days of the entry of the order; (3) Authorizing Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice (Exhibits A & B) and implementing a procedure whereby the notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and text message) to: "All current and former hourly employees who worked for Ken's Foods, Inc. at any of its manufacturing facilities during the last three years (the "FLSA Collective"). (4) Appointing the undersigned as counsel for the FLSA Collective; and (5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this case, measured from the date the Court-authorized notice is sent, with one reminder email sent 30 days thereafter to anyone who did not respond. Ken's Foods produces, packages, and retails salad dressings and sauces. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oLEqr5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com aasciutto@sommerspc.com - and - Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq. STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC 10 Wendell Ave. Ext. Suite 208 Pittsfield, MA 01201 Telephone: (413) 418-4176 E-mail: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Barton Sues Over Unsafe Amount of Lead ----------------------------------------------------------- Allison Barton, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-01337-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal., July 30, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's violation of California consumer protection law as a result of the Defendant failing to disclose, and materially omits, that its U by KOTEX Click compact tampons (the "Products") contain an unsafe amount of lead. California's Proposition 65 sets the Maximum Allowable Dose Level ("MADL") for reproductive toxicity at 0.5 micrograms of lead per day. Based on independent scientific testing and analysis, ordinary and expected use of the Products exposes consumers to far more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day. The lead in the Products is particularly problematic for consumers based on the intended manner of use of the Products. The Products are intended to be inserted vaginally. Thus, unlike food containing lead that is consumed orally, the Products do not metabolize, and the lead contained in the Products is not filtered by the liver. The lead contained in the Products can directly enter the bloodstream. The lead in the Products presents an unreasonable safety hazard, both due to the manner of use of the Products and the amount of lead contained in the Products. The Defendant knows or should know that the Products contain lead. The Defendant has an independent duty to disclose the lead in the Products based on the health risk associated with use of the Products and/or because the Products are unfit for consumer use. The Defendant does not disclose, and materially omits, that the Products contain lead. Although Defendant does not disclose that the Products contain lead, Defendant makes other advertising statements on the Product labels, which are designed to increase sales of the Products. The Product labels state, for example, that the Products contain "no harsh ingredients"; that they contain "elemental chlorine-free rayon"; and that they are "pesticide free"; "made without fragrance"; "gynecologist tested"; and "BPA free". These label representations are likely to lead reasonable consumers to believe that the Products are safe to use and free from harmful elements and ingredients. These label representations are misleading based on the lead contained in the Products. Reasonable consumers who purchase Defendant's Products bearing the label representations--and without any disclosure that the Products contain lead--are misled and deceived. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered economic injury based on their purchase of the Products, which they would not have bought had they known that the Products contain an unsafe amount of lead, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen of California who purchased the Products. The Defendant and its agents manufacture, market, distribute, label, promote, advertise and sell the Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naomi Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Ste.192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Phone: 310.400.1053 Fax: 212.202.6364 Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com LENDING LOVE: Foster Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Mykeshia Foster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LENDING LOVE LLC, Case 3:24-cv-00445-CWR-ASH (S.D. Miss., July 30, 2024), is brought challenging the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the "FLSA") as a result of unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff and all other employees of Lending Love frequently worked more than hours per week. Lending Love instituted a policy whereby none of its employees were paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 during a given week. Rather, all of Lending Love's employees were only paid at their base rate regardless of how many hours they worked during any week. Lending Love failed to pay Plaintiff and all other employees overtime equal to one-and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. By neglecting to pay Plaintiff and all of its other employees one— and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, Lending Love implemented a continuous and systematic process and procedure which deprived Plaintiff and all other non- exempt, hourly wage employees of the overtime they are due pursuant to the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant until December Of 2023 as a "PCA." Lending Love provides home health services to residents Of Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC 100 South Main Street Post Office Box 382 Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Phone: (662) 728-9733 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 Email: jsimpson@langstonlotl.com LGI HOMES: Class Cert Oral Argument in McAlister Set for Nov. 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McAlister v. LGI Homes Corporate, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03088 (D. Colo., Filed Nov. 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Nina Y. Wang entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion requesting oral argument on motion seeking class certification. -- The Oral argument is set for Nov. 7, 2024. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving minimum wage or overtime compensation. LGI Homes operates as a home builder.[CC] LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Mitchell Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES MITCHELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LINEAGE LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24CV012996 (Filed June 28, 2024) was removed from the Superior Court of the State California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 2, 2024. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02099-JAM-CSK to the proceeding. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, alleges the following causes of action under the California Labor Code. (1) Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; (5) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (7) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; and (8) Unfair Business Practices. Lineage is the global leader of the temperature-controlled logistics industry.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Curtis A. Graham, Esq. E. Cliff Martin, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 E-mail: cagraham@littler.com cmartin@littler.com - and - Alexandria Rafizadeh, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 E-mail: awitte-rafizadeh@littler.com LOEWS HOLLYWOOD: Cardenas Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Eric Cardenas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. LOEWS HOLLYWOOD HOTEL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; LOEWS HOTELS & CO, a business entity of unknown form; LOEWS CORPORATION, a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV15653 was removed from Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06342. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and Overtime; Failure to Pay Proper Vacation Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages; Failure to Indemnify; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ryan C. Bykerk, Esq. Joseph M. Dietrich, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.732.6500 Facsimile: 949.732.6501 Email: bykerkr@gtlaw.com joe.dietrich@gtlaw.com LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Parish of St. Mary Suit Removed to W.D. La. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Parish of St. Mary, City of Franklin, City of New Iberia, and Johnny Gibson, and all others similarly situated, and Keirco, Inc., a corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND AT&T INC., was removed from the 16th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Mary, State of Louisiana, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on July 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 6:24-cv-01001. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "laid lead-wrapped cables between the late 1800s and the 1960s as they built out telephone service across the U.S." the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have "left these cables in place." The Plaintiffs allege that "the cables are a source of significant environmental damage" to Plaintiffs' and putative class members' properties and that "lead has dissipated into the soil and underground water on the properties." The Plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of themselves and seek to represent a putative class that includes "all parishes, municipalities, and citizens owning properties in the State of Louisiana, with abandoned lead-wrapped telecommunications cables laid, owned, or operated by Defendants AT&T Inc. and/or Lumen Technologies Inc. or their predecessors in interest."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam B. Zuckerman, Esq. Lauren Brink Adams, Esq. William E. Wildman, III, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3600 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: (504) 566-5200 Facsimile: (504) 636-4000 Email: azuckerman@bakerdonelson.com lbrink@bakerdonelson.com wwildman@bakerdonelson.com - and - Hariklia Karis, Esq. Robert B. Ellis, Esq. Mark J. Nomellini, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 W. Wolf Point Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-2000 Email: hkaris@kirkland.com rellis@kirkland.com mnomellini@kirkland.com - and - Jon David Kelley, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 4550 Travis Street Dallas, TX 75205 Email: jon.kelley@kirkland.com - and - Loulan J. Pitre, Jr., Esq. Jane A. Jackson, Esq. KELLY HART PITRE 400 Poydras Street, Suite 1812 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 522-1812 Facsimile: (504) 522-1813 Email: loulan.pitre@kellyhart.com jane.jackson@kellyhart.com - and - Adam K. Levin, Esq. Lee C. Rarrick, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1109 Phone: (202) 637-5600 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 Email: adam.levin@hoganlovells.com lee.rarrick@hoganlovells.com - and - Megan R. Nishikawa, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 374-2300 Facsimile: (415) 374-2499 Email: megan.nishikawa@hoganlovells.com LUNO INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luno Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Luno Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-05752 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Luno -- https://www.luno.com/en -- is a global cryptocurrency company operating across Africa, Oceania, US & Europe.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. MACROGENICS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in MacroGenics, Inc. ("MacroGenics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MGNX) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of MacroGenics investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between March 7, 2024 and May 9, 2024. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/macrogenics-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=93316&wire=4 MGNX investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: During the class period, Defendants made material misrepresentations about the safety data from its TAMARACK Phase 2 study of vobramitamab duocarmazine. On May 9, 2024, the investing public learned that the drug was significantly more dangerous than defendants had previously represented. Following this news, MGNX's stock declined 77.4% due to a drop of $11.36/share. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in MacroGenics during the relevant time frame, you have until September 24, 2024 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] MAGNESIUM PRODUCTS: Skipwith Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Dicecil Skipwith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAGNESIUM PRODUCTS OF AMERICA, INC., a Michigan corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-00782 (W.D. Mich., July 30, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the common law claim of unjust enrichment. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's hourly employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. The Plaintiff spent substantial amounts of time preparing the worksite and completing safety protocols before starting each shift. Additionally, Defendant required Plaintiff to wear company-issued protective clothing during his shifts. Defendant required Plaintiff to change into ("don") and change out of ("doff") the PPE before and after his work shifts in a designated location at Defendant's manufacturing facility. The process of donning and doffing the PPE was compensable because Defendant required Plaintiff to wear the PPE during his work shifts and to don and doff the PPE at the worksite. The Plaintiff spent substantial amounts of time each day donning and doffing the PPE, preparing the worksite, and conducting safety protocols before and after his shifts. The Defendant, however, did not pay Plaintiff for this time. Instead, Defendant only paid Plaintiff based on the time his scheduled shift started and the time his scheduled shift ended regardless of when he was "clocked-in" to Defendant's timekeeping system. Because Plaintiff was required to don his PPE, prepare his workstation, conduct safety protocols, and doff his PPE after the end of his scheduled shift time, Plaintiff was not paid for his time beginning with his first principal activity of the workday and continuing through his last principal activity of the workday. Consequently, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for all compensable time, including overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from December 17, 2018 through April 9, 2024, as an hourly recycle operator. The Defendant is a Michigan corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoop, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 824-3828 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com MAMA TACO LLC: Colon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Lynnette Colon, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Mama Taco, LLC, AMK Brooklyn Inc., Kevin Burch, Michael Ciron, Natanael Valerio, and Rose Rodriguez, Case No. 1:24-cv-05821 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours, unlawfully deducted gratuities, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"). The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek. the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating Plaintiff's tips. Specifically, Defendants required Plaintiff, and all similarly situated individuals, to distribute their tips. Such tips were required to be distributed to non-tipped individuals at MaMaTaco, to wit: the Individual Defendants. Plaintiff, and all similarly situated individuals, were required to give 15% of their tips to the Individual Defendants. The Defendants' failure to provide accurate wage notices and accurate wage statements denied Plaintiff their statutory right to receive true and accurate information about the nature of their employment and related compensation policies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a waitress and bartender at the Defendants' restaurants known as "MaMaTaco." The Defendants own, operate and/or control the restaurants known as "MaMaTaco."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com MANHATTAN PARKING: Balseca Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Angel Balseca and Ricardo Fabian, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MANHATTAN PARKING GROUP LLC, MANHATTAN PARKING SYSTEMS GARAGE CORP., METROPOLITAN PARKING GROUP LLC, MEYERS PARKING, INC., MP LINCOLN GARAGE LLC, MP GOTHAM GARAGE LLC, ALLAN GORDON, and JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1-100, Case No. 1:24-cv-05818 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024), is brought pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiffs were scheduled to work five days a week, eight hours each day, for exactly 40 hours of work each week. Throughout the Plaintiffs' employment the Plaintiff were only paid for this schedule despite working hours beyond his schedule each week. The Plaintiffs used clock machines to clocked-in and out. These clock records demonstrate work hours greater than what they were compensated each day and week. As Plaintiffs were compensated for exactly 40 hours each week, these uncompensated hours were overtime hours. The Plaintiffs worked an additional half hour each day, and are underpaid two-and-one-half overtime hours each week, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. The Defendants own or operate over 100 parking facilities throughout the New York City area.[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 Phone: (212) 465-1188 MARTHA WOOD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Walther Extended to Sept. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Walther, et al., v. Wood, et al., the Case No. 1:23-cv-00294 (N.D. Ill., Filed July 14, 2023) Hon. Judge Gretchen S. Lund entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time to move for class certification to and including Sept. 20, 2024. The nature of suit states Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).[CC] MC TRANSPORT SERVICES: Orozco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MC Transport Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ivan C. Orozco, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MC Transport Services, Inc., Mike Lowrie Trucking, Inc., Case No. BCV-24-102563 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., July 31, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." MC Transport Services LLC transports building maintenance, construction, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Schelly, Esq. Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo St., Ste. 336 El Segundo, CA 90245-4783 Phone: 310-322-2211 Fax: 310-322-2252 Email: thomas@kallaw.com kevin@kallaw.com MCMENAMINS INC: Allowed to File Answer Beyond Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW LEONARD et al., v. MCMENAMINS INC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00094-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order granting McMenamins' motion for relief from deadline to file its answer. The lack of bad faith by McMenamins in failing to answer favors granting the extension of time. In all, McMenamins has no justification for failing to answer on time, but the lack of prejudice to Plaintiffs, bad faith, or need to delay the proceedings, support a finding of excusable neglect that warrants an extension of time. The Court finds Plaintiffs will not suffer prejudice by allowing McMenamins to file its answer late. McMenamins asks the Court for leave to file its answer over 21 months late. While unmoved by McMenamins' efforts to shift the blame for its failure to Plaintiffs, the Court nonetheless finds McMenamins' extreme delay in answering Plaintiffs' amended complaint does not evidence bad faith. Permitting the filing of the answer now will neither prejudice Plaintiffs nor delay the proceedings. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), McMenamins has shown excusable neglect and the Court grants its motion to extend time to file its answer. The suit is a data breach case, but only the procedural history of the case is relevant for purposes of this motion. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint against McMenamins on May 13, 2022. McMenamins timely moved to dismiss the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 19) which was denied on September 2, 2022. McMenamins is a family-owned chain of brewpubs, breweries, music venues, historic hotels, and theater pubs. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=34xMKU at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2984: Plaintiffs Class Certification Bid Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Folgers Coffee Marketing, Case No. 4:21-md-02984-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court finds class certification is appropriate here. The class is adequately defined and ascertainable. Smith also satisfies all four requirements of Rule 23(a). Finally, questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other methods of adjudicating the issues in this case, satisfying Rule 23(b)(3). For these reasons: -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is granted as to the Missouri Class. -- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Plaintiff Mark Smith's Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and unjust enrichment claims are certified as a single class action defined as: "All persons who purchased any of the Products in Missouri for personal, family, or household purposes, and not for resale, during the time period from Aug. 27, 2015, to present." The Missouri Class's Products are those listed in Doc. 263-2. -- Plaintiff Mark Smith is designated as the class representative of the Missouri Class. -- The law firms of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and Lynch Carpenter, LLP are appointed class counsel for the Missouri Class. The parties are directed to, by no later than September 4, 2024, (1) confer about the next steps of litigating the Missouri Class, including the provision of notice to class members, and (2) file a Joint Status Report regarding the same. In this MDL, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants are liable for labeling coffee canisters in a way that misrepresents how many cups of coffee a consumer can brew from the canisters' contents. The Plaintiffs are individuals from various states who have purchased Products. They allege the Up To Claim is deceptive because the Products do not produce the number of cups claimed when one follows the brewing instructions provided on the back label. Plaintiffs assert claims individually but have also filed a Motion for Class Certification, which seeks certification of six statewide classes. The Defendant sells Folgers ground coffee products in cannisters of various sizes, flavors, and roasts. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lCWykm at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Baltimore v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baltimore et al v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00772 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties shall complete inspections by March 24, 2025. 2. The close of fact discovery is July 22, 2025. 3. Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent with Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for deposition dates, on or before June 17, 2025. The Defendants shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent with Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for deposition dates, on or before Aug. 18, 2025. The deadline for any rebuttal expert disclosures with options for deposition dates is Sept. 17, 2025. 4. The close of expert discovery is Oct. 17, 2025. 5. The deadline for filing motions for class certification and any Daubert motions relating to class experts is Nov. 3, 2025. Response briefs must be filed on or before Dec. 15, 2025. Reply briefs must be filed on or before Jan. 26, 2026. 6. The court expects counsel to confer and make a good faith effort to settle the case. On July 30, 2024, the court held a scheduling conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Civil L. R. 16(a) (E.D. Wis.). The Baltimore Suit is consolidated in GENERAC SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 23-MD-3078). These actions share common questions of fact arising from allegations that the SnapRS rapid shutdown components in solar power storage systems manufactured and marketed by Generac have a tendency to overheat and melt or catch fire, causing loss of power and the risk of fire or other damage to users' homes. All involved actions are putative nationwide or statewide class actions. Plaintiffs assert substantially similar claims for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or breach of implied and express warranties, along with various claims for breach of contract, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, or violation of state consumer protection statutes. Generac designs and manufactures power generation equipment serving residential, commercial, and industrial markets. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qXybPe at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Basler v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Basler et al v. Generac Power Systems Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01386 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties shall complete inspections by March 24, 2025. 2. The close of fact discovery is July 22, 2025. 3. Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent with Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for deposition dates, on or before June 17, 2025. The Defendants shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent with Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for deposition dates, on or before Aug. 18, 2025. The deadline for any rebuttal expert disclosures with options for deposition dates is Sept. 17, 2025. 4. The close of expert discovery is Oct. 17, 2025. 5. The deadline for filing motions for class certification and any Daubert motions relating to class experts is Nov. 3, 2025. Response briefs must be filed on or before Dec. 15, 2025. Reply briefs must be filed on or before Jan. 26, 2026. 6. The court expects counsel to confer and make a good faith effort to settle the case. On July 30, 2024, the court held a scheduling conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Civil L. R. 16(a) (E.D. Wis.). The Basler Suit is consolidated in GENERAC SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 23-MD-3078). These actions share common questions of fact arising from allegations that the SnapRS rapid shutdown components in solar power storage systems manufactured and marketed by Generac have a tendency to overheat and melt or catch fire, causing loss of power and the risk of fire or other damage to users' homes. All involved actions are putative nationwide or statewide class actions. Plaintiffs assert substantially similar claims for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or breach of implied and express warranties, along with various claims for breach of contract, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, or violation of state consumer protection statutes. Generac designs and manufactures power generation equipment serving residential, commercial, and industrial markets. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KrZSYZ at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Haak v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Haak v. Generac Power Systems Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00685 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties shall complete inspections by March 24, 2025. 2. The close of fact discovery is July 22, 2025. 3. Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent with Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for deposition dates, on or before June 17, 2025. The Defendants shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent with Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for deposition dates, on or before Aug. 18, 2025. The deadline for any rebuttal expert disclosures with options for deposition dates is Sept. 17, 2025. 4. The close of expert discovery is Oct. 17, 2025. 5. The deadline for filing motions for class certification and any Daubert motions relating to class experts is Nov. 3, 2025. Response briefs must be filed on or before Dec. 15, 2025. Reply briefs must be filed on or before Jan. 26, 2026. 6. The court expects counsel to confer and make a good faith effort to settle the case. On July 30, 2024, the court held a scheduling conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Civil L. R. 16(a) (E.D. Wis.). The Haak Suit is consolidated in GENERAC SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 23-MD-3078). These actions share common questions of fact arising from allegations that the SnapRS rapid shutdown components in solar power storage systems manufactured and marketed by Generac have a tendency to overheat and melt or catch fire, causing loss of power and the risk of fire or other damage to users' homes. All involved actions are putative nationwide or statewide class actions. Plaintiffs assert substantially similar claims for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or breach of implied and express warranties, along with various claims for breach of contract, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, or violation of state consumer protection statutes. Generac designs and manufactures power generation equipment serving residential, commercial, and industrial markets. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ASGtAo at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Hufton v. GHI Due Nov. 3, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hufton, et al., v. Generac Holdings Inc et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00771 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties shall complete inspections by March 24, 2025. 2. The close of fact discovery is July 22, 2025. 3. Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent with Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for deposition dates, on or before June 17, 2025. The Defendants shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent with Rule 26(a)(2), and with options for deposition dates, on or before Aug. 18, 2025. The deadline for any rebuttal expert disclosures with options for deposition dates is Sept. 17, 2025. 4. The close of expert discovery is Oct. 17, 2025. 5. The deadline for filing motions for class certification and any Daubert motions relating to class experts is Nov. 3, 2025. Response briefs must be filed on or before Dec. 15, 2025. Reply briefs must be filed on or before Jan. 26, 2026. 6. The court expects counsel to confer and make a good faith effort to settle the case. On July 30, 2024, the court held a scheduling conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Civil L. R. 16(a) (E.D. Wis.). The Hufton Suit is consolidated in GENERAC SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 23-MD-3078). These actions share common questions of fact arising from allegations that the SnapRS rapid shutdown components in solar power storage systems manufactured and marketed by Generac have a tendency to overheat and melt or catch fire, causing loss of power and the risk of fire or other damage to users' homes. All involved actions are putative nationwide or statewide class actions. Plaintiffs assert substantially similar claims for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or breach of implied and express warranties, along with various claims for breach of contract, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, or violation of state consumer protection statutes. Generac designs and manufactures power generation equipment serving residential, commercial, and industrial markets. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5RVrTP at no extra charge.[CC] MECC CONTRACTING: Badalamenti Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Giuseppe Badalamenti, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MECC CONTRACTING INC., LUIGI MOCCIA, and JOSEPH MECCARIELLO, Case No. 1:24-cv-05388 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024), is brought seeking unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages based upon Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (hereinafter referred to as "FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law (hereinafter referred to as "NYLL"), and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The Defendants did not properly compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members at their promised rates of pay as required by law for all hours they worked for Defendants. The Defendants did not properly compensate Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class Members at the lawful overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay as required by law for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class Members the required overtime premiums of one- and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay for all of the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from October, 2020 until April 26, 2024. The Defendants operate a construction company, based in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES 110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: (718) 799-9111 Email: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com MEIJER GREAT LAKES: Kubiak Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meijer Great Lakes Limited Partnership. The case is styled as Donald Kubiak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Meijer Great Lakes Limited Partnership, Case No. 1:24-cv-06628 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Meijer Specialty Pharmacy -- https://meijerspecialtypharmacy.com/ -- provides holistic patient care by combining disease management with a focus on the overall physical and mental well-being.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 Ne 1st Ave, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com MELISSA MARTIN: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Vazquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Melissa Martin and Millennium Brilliant Minds, LLC d/b/a MMM Marketing, Case No. 2:24-cv-03798-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, July 31, 2024), is brought for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Ohio Revised Code Ann. ("ORC") for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff add similarly situated individuals all earned minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff, in his work for Defendants, worked a minimum of 10 hours per day and often worked 12 or more hours per day. As a matter of common policy and practice, Defendants misclassify all of their sales agents as independent contractors not subject to the FLSA's overtime and minimum wage provisions. Consistent with this common policy and practice, Plaintiff and others similarly situated individuals have been intentionally misclassified by Defendants as independent contractors not subject to the FLSA's overtime and minimum wage provisions. As a result of Defendants' common misclassification policy, Defendants have not paid a minimum wage or overtime pay to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Specifically, Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and others similarly situated as independent contractors not subject to the FLSA's overtime and minimum wage provisions and required Plaintiff and others similarly situated to work 40 or more hours per week and did not pay them an hourly wage equal to the applicable minimum wage and did not pay them overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rates, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants and worked for Defendants as a sales agent from April 27, 2023 through December 1, 2023. The Defendants do business as Tomorrow Energy and sell energy credits and contracts to customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Phone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com MERICLE MECHANICAL: Emrick Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mericle Mechanical, Inc., et al. The case is styled as John Emrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mericle Mechanical Inc., Thomas Robert Mericle, an individual, Mericle Martha Elizabeth, Case No. 24STCV19141 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Mericle Mechanical Inc. -- https://www.mericlemechanicalllc.com/ -- is a construction company based in Placentia, CA and specializes in Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning HVAC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omid Nosrati, Esq. NOSRATILAW, APLC 1801 Century Park E., Ste. 840 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2349 Phone: 310-553-5630 Fax: 310-553-5691 Email: omid@nosratilaw.com MERIT ENERGY: GOP LLC Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOP, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Merit Energy Company, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00278-JDR-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court granting the proposed Preliminary Approval Order, which will: (1) certify the Settlement Class for Settlement purposes, defined as: "All non-excluded persons or entities who during the Claim Period: (1) received an Untimely Payment from Merit for oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells, or on whose behalf an Untimely Payment was sent as unclaimed property to a government entity by Merit; and (2) whose proceeds did not include the statutory interest required by the PRSA." Excluded from the Class are: (1) Merit, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) Publicly traded oil and gas companies and their affiliates and subsidiaries; (4) any Indian Tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allotee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); (5) any officers of the Court; (6) persons previously paid interest by Merit. (2) preliminarily approve the Settlement; (3) appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Settlement Class; (4) appoint Randy Smith of Randy C. Smith and Associates and David R. Gleason of Moricoli Kellogg & Gleason, P.C. as Co-Lead Class Counsel; (5) approve the form and manner of the proposed Notice; (6) appoint Kroll Settlement Administration as Settlement Administrator; (7) appoint Kroll Settlement Administration as Escrow Agent; and (8) set a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement and application for an award of Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses and Administration, Notice, and Distribution Costs, and a Case Contribution Award to the Plaintiff. After almost two years of litigation, the Plaintiff has obtained an outstanding recovery for the Settlement Class. Specifically, the Plaintiff has reached a settlement worth $3.5 million in cash for the Plaintiff's class claims for statutory interest owed on late payments of oil-and-gas proceeds under Oklahoma law. Additionally, the Plaintiff has obtained a substantial future benefit for the Settlement Class by obtaining an agreement from the Defendant to implement policies and procedures to automatically remit interest to the Settlement Class in the future without awaiting a demand pursuant to the requirements of the Production Revenue Standards Act ("PRSA"). The Plaintiff initiated this case on Sept. 30, 2022, with the filing of the Complaint, in which the Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated the PRSA by failing to remit interest for payments of oil and gas proceeds made outside the statutory deadlines in the PRSA. The Defendant filed its Answer to Complaint on Nov. 2, 2022. The Court entered the Class Certification Scheduling Order on March 15, 2023, and an Amended Scheduling Order on Sept. 13, 2023. Merit Energy is a privately held US-based oil and gas company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VLfra7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randy C. Smith, Esq. RANDY C. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES One Leadership Square, Suite 1310 211 North Robinson Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone (405) 212-2786 Facsimile (405) 232-6515 E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com – and – David R. Gleason, Esq. MORICOLI KELLOGG & GLEASON, P.C. 211 N. Robinson, One Leadership Square, St. 1350 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235–3357 Facsimile: (405) 232–6515 E-mail: dgleason@moricoli.com MID-ATLANTIC EATERIES: Class Settlement in Berman Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANNA BERMAN, v. MID-ATLANTIC EATERIES, INC., et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-02840-ABA (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Adam Abelson entered an order that: (1) The Parties' joint motion for final approval of the settlement is granted. (2) The Parties' settlement agreement is approved as fair and Reasonable. (3) Plaintiff's putative Rule 23 class action claims are dismissed with prejudice. (4) The Plaintiff's counsel shall promptly advise the Court after all payments have been received by the Plaintiffs, and upon such time, all claims asserted by Plaintiffs, shall be dismissed with prejudice. The Court concludes the standard for approval of the settlement is satisfied. The proposed settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute, and the attorneys' fees and costs are fair and reasonable. The settlement will be approved, and the requested fees will be awarded in full. The Plaintiff Arianna Berman initiated a collective action against her former employer, Mid-Atlantic and its general manager, Erika Kopper, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and analogous state law, and breach of contract. Between July 2022 and June 2023, the Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee at the Copper Shark, Defendants' restaurant in Baltimore, Maryland. She filed suit against the Defendants on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging that Defendants withheld straight time wages, failed to pay overtime compensation, maintained a policy of recording reduced working hours, and deducted a "tip credit" against Defendants' minimum wage obligations without informing her. Mid-Atlantic Eateries is a restaurant group. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7gvN8i at no extra charge.[CC] MORGENSTERN'S BANANAS: Forrest Sues Over Website's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAYMOND FORREST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MORGENSTERN'S BANANAS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05307-DG-VMS (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.Morgensternsnyc.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of keyboard access, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Morgenstern's Bananas LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [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 Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com MORPHIC HOLDING: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wohl & Fruchter LLP announces that on July 25, 2024, it filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Zappia v. Morphic Holding, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-04486-JD, on behalf of a class ("Class") of individuals and entities holding the common stock of Morphic Holding, Inc. (Nasdaq: MORF) ("Morphic"), asserting claims under Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and under Delaware state law, in connection with the proposed sale of Morphic to Eli Lilly and Company via a tender offer. Morphic investors are hereby notified that not later than 60 days after the date of this notice, any member of the purported Class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported Class in this action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please complete and submit the form on the following webpage: https://wohlfruchter.com/cases/morphic-holding/ Alternatively, please contact us by phone at 866-833-6245, or via email at alerts@wohlfruchter.com. About Wohl & Fruchter Wohl & Fruchter LLP, with offices in New York City and Monsey, has for over a decade been representing investors in litigation arising from fraud and other corporate misconduct, and recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for investors. Please visit our website, www.wohlfruchter.com, to learn more about our Firm, or contact one of our partners. Contact: Wohl & Fruchter LLP Joshua E. Fruchter Toll Free 866.833.6245 alerts@wohlfruchter.com www.wohlfruchter.com [GN] MV FOODS: Lawman Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------- HAIDEN LAWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MV FOODS, LLC, and MATTHEW TODD VOGEL, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01053 (E.D. Mo., July 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Papa John's store located in Webb City, Missouri from approximately July 2022 to March 2024. MV Foods, LLC is an operator of Papa John's Pizza franchise stores, doing business in Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 Email: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com NATIONAL BOARD: Faces Bahreini Class Suit Over ADA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Board For Certified Counselors, Inc. The suit is captioned as Siavash Bahreini on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. National Board For Certified Counselors, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-05407-VEC (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2024). The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The National Board for Certified Counselors, Inc. and Affiliates is an international certifying organization for professional counselors in the United States. It is an independent, not-for-profit credentialing organization based in Greensboro, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taimur Alamgir, Esq. TA Legal Group PLLC 315 Main Street Ste Second Floor Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (914) 552-2669 E-mail: tim@talegalgroup.com NEW BRUNSWICK: Agrees to Settles 2017 Jail Fire Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ CBC Lite reports that the New Brunswick government has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by inmates over a 2017 jail fire believed to have started by a worker's discarded cigarette. The New Brunswick Office of the Fire Marshal determined the Oct. 25, 2017, fire at the Southeast Regional Correctional Centre in Shediac was accidental. It ruled the fire likely happened when a discarded cigarette butt fell between the openings of a wooden ramp and ignited a pile of dry leaves in a non-smoking area only employees could access. In 2018, inmates at the jail filed a class-action lawsuit against the province alleging negligence by staff led to violations of the rights of the inmates, as well as physical and psychological harm. A class action is a type of lawsuit where one or more people, called representative plaintiffs, sue on behalf of a larger group, or class, claiming similar harms. The case was certified as a class action by a judge in 2020, allowing it to proceed. Documents in the case file say a settlement was reached in June that would see the province pay $1.27 million. The settlement must still be approved by a judge. Province denies liability The documents in the file say despite the settlement, the province denies the truth of the allegations in the lawsuit and denies any liability. A spokesperson for the province said it wouldn't comment on the proposed settlement. The jail fire representative plaintiffs are Jessy Timothy Rose and Lee Mitchell, with a class of 162 people who could be eligible to make a claim for settlement funds. The proposed settlement would see all class members able to claim a basic payment of up to $5,000. Inmates with proof of physical or psychological injuries could claim larger amounts. Affidavits from inmates described their experience during the fire. Jamie Cassie was in his bunk when he noticed it was getting dark outside and others in the jail unit, which had about 40 people, started yelling "fire" and banging on cell doors. Cassie described smoke starting to enter the cell through the vents, which he and his cellmate tried to block with clothing, bedding, toothbrushes and toilet paper. "I then began to kick the door," Cassie stated. "I was hoping to kick it down, desperate to get out but I knew this was unlikely. I felt like a caged animal in a burning building and that the guards didn't care." Eventually the guards did move inmates outside to a recreation yard and then another area, where he described still being able to feel heat from the fire. The lawsuit says inmates in certain units were moved to outdoor areas, while the fire continued burning adjacent structures, with flames and debris blowing into the yards where the inmates were being held. The case alleged several inmates suffered burns and emotional trauma from being held near the fire. Mitchell described being in a unit with about 50 other people when a jail guard told them to immediately go to a recreation yard attached to the unit. Mitchell called it a small space for 50 men, given it had a capacity for 10 and was an estimated six by 12 metres. The space filled with smoke, and he used his shirt to cover his face. Mitchell described eventually seeing large flames over an adjacent wall, and that the inmates standing shoulder-to-shoulder started to demand to be relocated. "I could feel the heat of the fire in the building we were locked up next to," Mitchell said. He described guards eventually zip-tying their hands and moving them to an area several metres away but still close enough to feel the heat of the fire, where he remained for hours. "The entire experience of being locked up for hours next to a burning building caused me a significant amount of stress and anxiety," Mitchell stated. The fire led to inmates being relocated and some housed in temporary trailers while the building was repaired. The case returns to court Nov. 28. [GN] NEW HAMPSHIRE: Loses Bid for Reconsideration in G.K. Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.K., by their next friend, Katherine Cooper et al., v. Christopher Sununu, Governor of New Hampshire et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00004-PB (DNH), the Hon. Judge Paul Barbadoro entered an order: -- denying the defendants' motion for reconsideration; and —- granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and motion for leave to supplement their expert declarations. Yet, because of the significant delays caused by countless discovery disputes and an unusually prolonged attempt at mediation, the case remains in its preliminary stages without a decision on class certification. These delays have necessitated not only the addition of multiple new plaintiffs, but also an aggressive schedule to finally bring this case to resolution. Given that the defendants bear at least partial responsibility for these delays, they cannot now be heard to complain of prejudice caused by the expedited schedule. Four juveniles filed a putative class action complaint against various state defendants, seeking to represent a class of adolescents with mental disabilities in the custody of the New Hampshire Division of Children, Youth, and Families. Since filing the complaint, each of the four named plaintiffs have exited DCYF custody. The plaintiffs filed two separate motions to amend their complaint to add new named plaintiffs still within DCYF custody, which the defendants oppose. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QdmfKD at no extra charge.[CC] NEW VIDEO CHANNEL: Cheng Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Video Channel America LLC. The case is styled as Yi-Chieh Cheng, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. New Video Channel America LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05811 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian Hammond, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, PC 11780 W. Sample Rd., Ste. 103 Coral Springs, FL 33065-3141 Phone: 310-601-6766 Fax: 310-295-2385 Email: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com NLP LLC: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniel Lopez, Jr., an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NLP, LLC, and NALS APARTMENT HOMES, LLC, Case No. 24CV03617 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06403. The Plaintiff alleges that he is a former employee of both Defendants. He asserts various claims based on an alleged "Data Breach" involving Plaintiff's personally identifiable information (the "Data Security Incident"). His claims include negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, and claims under the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Customer Records Act, and California Consumer Privacy Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Vassi Iliadis, Esq. Elliot Herzig, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.785.4600 Fax: 310.785.4601 Email: vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com elliot.herzig@hoganlovells.com - and - Sarah F. Hutchins, Esq. Stephen V. Carey, Esq. PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP 620 South Tryon Street, Suite 800 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: 704.335.6639 Fax: 704.334.4706 Email: sarahhutchins@parkerpoe.com stevecarey@parkerpoe.com NOVA HOME: Plaintiffs' Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YELENA SAVINOVA and YEMILIYA MAZUR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. NOVA HOME CARE, LLC, SOUTHERN HOME CARE SERVICES, INC., ALEH HULIAVATSENKA, and YULIYA NOVIKAVA, Case No. 3:20-cv-01612-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala Nagala entered an order that all motions for reconsideration are denied and Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is denied. The Court denies Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. Plaintiffs do not raise any new evidence to show numerosity is met nor attempt to redefine the class. The Plaintiffs are a conditionally certified collective of twenty-six live-in caregivers employed by Defendant Southern Home Care Services, Inc., Defendant Nova Home Care, LLC, or both between Oct. 27, 2017, and the present, seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to Section 16 of the Fair Labor Standard Act ("FLSA"), and unpaid hourly wages and overtime compensation pursuant to Connecticut Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"). Nova Home provides home support services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oMWKZZ at no extra charge.[CC] NTN BEARING: Collins Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Scott Collins, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, NTN USA CORPORATION, and AMERICAN NTN BEARING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Case No. 2024CH6074 as removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 31, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06726. On June 28, 2024, Plaintiff initiated the State Court Action as a putative class action alleging that NTN violated the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that NTN violated GIPA by requiring him and other employees to submit to pre employment physical examinations during which employees were asked to provide genetic information, including family medical histories.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas A. Lidbury (ARDC No. 621158) Kristina M. Wright (CO No. 47337) OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-558-1220 Facsimile: 312-807-3619 Email: thomas.lidbury@ogletree.com kristina.wright@ogletree.com NTN BEARING: Collins Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Scott Collins, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, NTN USA CORPORATION, AMERICAN NTN BEARING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Case No. 2024CH06074 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 31, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06723 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Other Contract. NTN Bearing Corporation -- https://ntnamericas.com/ -- manufacture and supply the most comprehensive range of bearings, constant velocity joints, and other precision industrial and automotive equipment to meet a variety of applications, across a variety of industries.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT: Rhyner Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Jason Rhyner, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and aggrieved v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08094 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06413. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges seven purported causes of action for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements; failure to maintain required records; failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; failure to pay all wages owed upon separation; violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); civil penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"); predicated on the foregoing alleged California Labor Code violations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com - and - Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Transamerica Pyramid 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111-2806 Phone: 415.659.2600 Facsimile: 415.659.2601 Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com ORIENT EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Duan Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ KUN DUAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORIENT EXPRESS AZ, LLC d/b/a Sierra Suites, and XIAOFEN WEN a/k/a Xiaofen Li, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00344-JR (D. Ariz., July 15, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Arizona Payment of Wages Law, and the Internal Revenue Code. Plaintiff Duan was employed by Defendants to work as a cook at Sierra Suites' in-hotel restaurant from June 13, 2023 through July 15, 2023. Throughout his employment, Duan's flat salaries failed to compensate Plaintiff for hours worked beyond the 40th hour each week at a rate one and one-half times a regular hourly rate, says the suit. Orient Express AZ, LLC owns and operates "Sierra Suites," boutique hotel in Sierra Vista, AZ. [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 PALO ALTO INC: Patterson Sues Over Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------ Gilbert Patterson, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. PALO ALTO, INC., ROB ALVARADO, LINDA ALVARADO, DOE CORPORATION 1-10, JOHN DOE 1-10, Case No. 1:24-cv-02109 (D. Colo., July 31, 2024), is brought seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"), the New Mexico Payment of Wages Act, (together with the NMMWA, the "New Mexico wage laws"); the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("Colorado wage laws"); Virginia Minimum Wage Act ("VMWA"), the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA") (together "Virginia wage laws"); and unjust enrichment. The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, New Mexico wage laws, Colorado wage laws, and Virginia wage laws by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. All delivery drivers at the Defendants' Pizza Hut stores, including Plaintiff, have been subject to the same or similar employment policies and practices with respect to wages and reimbursement for expenses. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former delivery drivers nationwide who elect to opt in pursuant to FLSA to remedy violations of the FLSA by Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked at the Pizza Hut store located in Albuquerque, New Mexico from 2017 through 2021 when the store sold. The Defendants operated Pizza Hut locations across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Phone: 513-202-0710 Facsimile: 614-340-4620 Email: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com PANERA LLC: Chan Seeks Sept. 30 Extension for Class Cert Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL MEN CHAN, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PANERA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; BEVERLY NGUYEN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-04194-JLS-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a 30-day extension of her Motion for Class Certification deadline to Sept. 30, 2024. The prejudice Plaintiff now experiences is solely the result of Panera's bad faith conduct. The Plaintiff and her counsel take their duty to the putative class very seriously. Preserving the current Aug. 30, 2024 class certification deadline, while Motion II is pending and Defendant wreaks havoc in discovery, would irreparably harm the Plaintiff and her counsel's ability to adequately represent the rights of Class Members. In light of Defendant’s refusal to provide discovery, Plaintiff is currently seeking ex parte relief from the Magistrate Judge to compel responses consistent with Panera’s representations to the Court, including the provision of compliant responses, production of documents, and the production of deponents that Panera had agreed to produce by this week. However, compelling Panera to produce discovery cannot, without more, make Plaintiff whole from the prejudice Defendant’s conduct effected against her Panera’s filing of Motion II and its contemporaneous refusal to provide discovery it previously agreed to provide to Plaintiff’s Counsel and the Magistrate Judge began on July 26, 2024. (DDB Decl. ¶ 3.) As a direct consequence of Panera’s immediate change in direction and the uncompromising stance of its new counsel, Plaintiff seeks this emergency relief from the irreparable damage Motion II and Defendant’s consequent refusal to comply with discovery obligations will cause her by way of a thirty (30) day extension to the Motion for Class Certification deadline. This is a Class Action that has been pending before this Court for fifteen months. Plaintiff Angel Men Chan has a deadline to move for Class Certification in approximately one month. Somehow still, Panera felt that June 12, 2024 was an appropriate time to file a motion to compel arbitration. Shockingly absent from Motion I was a memorandum of points and authorities. The Plaintiff filed a thorough Opposition to Motion I, identifying, among other deficiencies, this crucial shortcoming, completely overlooked by Defendant, which independently warranted denial of Motion I. Panera operates as a chain of bakery-cafes. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dqbFNi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq. Calyn V. Hadlock, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com zach@tomorrowlaw.com calyn@tomorrowlaw.com PECO FOODS INC: Duncan Files Suit in N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peco Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Peco Foods, Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-01034-GMB (N.D. Ala., July 30, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Peco Foods -- https://pecofoods.com/ -- is a poultry products provider for industrial, retail and food service markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Terell, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 939-0199 Fax: (205) 939-0399 Email: brebarchak@mtattorneys.com - and - Patrick A. Barthle, Esq. Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N Franklin St, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 229-4023 Fax: (813) 222-4708 Email: pbarthle@forthepeople.com rmaxey@forthepeople.com PHILLIP MORRIS: Norris Sues Over ZYN Oral Nicotine's Deceptive Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ ETHAN NORRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHILLIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC. and SWEDISH MATCH NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01267 (D. Conn., July 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, false and misleading advertising, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of oral nicotine pouches under the ZYN brand. The Defendants deceptively marketed and promoted ZYN as being healthy and a nicotine-cessation device, whereas in fact, as the Defendants knew, ZYN had no health benefits, was not a proven or authorized cessation device and would merely lead to nicotine addiction for new users and sustain nicotine addiction for those already addicted. The Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the Defendants' unlawful conduct. Phillip Morris International, Inc. is a tobacco company with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. Swedish Match North America, LLC is a tobacco company with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646)-837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jarisohn@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: bscott@bursor.com - and - Scott R. Drury, Esq. DRURY LEGAL, LLC 6 Carriage Lane Highwood, IL 60040 Telephone: (312) 358-8225 Email: scott@drurylegal.com POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Seeks to Clarify Class Cert Order in Guzman --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL GUZMAN, et al., v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC., et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-01543-FLA-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court on Aug. 30, 2024, for partial reconsideration and clarification of its Order granting in part the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Specifically, Polaris requests that the Court: (1) grant partial reconsideration and narrow the scope of the Berlanga class to include only purchasers of RZR-branded vehicles, as plaintiff requested, and (2) clarify the end date of the Berlanga class period, which should be the date plaintiff filed his operative complaint, i.e., July 14, 2021. Polaris Inc. is an American automotive manufacturer. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GBVlje at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David A. Klein, Esq. Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-4200 Facsimile: (310) 552-5900 E-mail: david.klein@kirkland.com andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com - and - R. Allan Pixton, Esq. Paul D. Collier, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 191 N. Wacker, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 705-7400 Facsimile: (312) 705-7401 E-mail: allanpixton@quinnemanuel.com paulcollier@quinnemanuel.com - and - Kelsey Bleiweiss, Esq. GUNSTER 300 N. Wabash, 23rd Floor Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 898-5306 Facsimile: (305) 376-6010 E-mail: kbleiweiss@gunster.com PREMIER FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With WesBanco ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating Premier Financial Corp. (Nasdaq: PFC), relating to its proposed merger with WesBanco, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders will receive 0.80 shares of WesBanco common stock per share of Premier Financial stock they own. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. 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 the above listed company 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] PUBLIX SUPER: Roberts Seeks Conditional Status of Collective ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS, CAITLIN THROCKMORTON, BRANDY MOORE, CARTER HUBBS, and JESSICA SCHAFER individually on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-02447-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (a) conditionally certifying the FLSA Collective; (b) requiring Publix to produce in electronic or computer-readable format the full name, address(es), telephone number(s), email address(es), dates of employment, and locations of employment for members of the FLSA Collective; (c) authorizing distribution of Notice and Consent Form, and a reminder postcard, substantially in the forms attached as Exs. 23 and 24; (d) approving the Plaintiffs' plan for dissemination and return of Consent Forms; and (e) granting any additional relief that this Court deems just and proper. The record unquestionably establishes the DMs/ADMs are similarly situated in every relevant respect. Accordingly, the Court should conditionally certify the FLSA Collective. The limited discovery ordered by the Court further confirms what Plaintiffs already established in their first Motion: DMs/ADMs are similarly situated. Publix's admissions demonstrate that DMs/ADMs indisputably are similarly situated in every material respect, including their job duties and responsibilities, method of compensation and non-exempt classification, and consistent performance of unpaid overtime. Equally important, DMs/ADMs are similarly situated in that they uniformly assert that Publix's policies and procedures caused their off-the-clock work and denial of overtime compensation. Publix Super is an employee-owned American supermarket chain. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zxGPkS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Loren B. Donnell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 981 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com ldonnell@shavitzlaw.com - and - Ryan Morgan, Esq. Andrew Frisch, Esq. Jolie Pavlos, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 418-2069 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com afrisch@forthepeople.com R1 RCM: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to Investment Funds ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating R1 RCM Inc. (Nasdaq: RCM), relating to its proposed sale to investment funds affiliated with TowerBrook Capital Partners and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice. Under the terms of the agreement, RCM stock will be automatically converted into the right to receive $14.30 per share. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. 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 the above listed company 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] RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Bonilla Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Caroline Bonilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL - SAN DIEGO and RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER, Case No. 3:24-cv-01346-AGS-JLB (S.D. Cal., July 30, 2024), is brought seeking to recover all unpaid wages owed, arising out of Defendants' failure to comply with the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order in the treatment of their travel nurse employees by failing to pay them for time spent on mandatory work-related training materials. Under California law, employers like Defendants must generally pay their employees for time spent on work-related training materials, particularly if that training is a mandatory part of the job. Here, Defendants required all traveling nurses who were assigned to work at their facility, including Plaintiff and Class Members, to perform mandatory pre-assignment training, including completing an orientation curriculum, training modules, and passing required exams before they were permitted to begin their regular work assignments. Even though these training materials were mandatory and directly related to the jobs performed by Plaintiff and Class Members, Rady failed to pay for time spent completing them, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Rady as an hourly, non-exempt Registered Nurse within the state of California. Rady Children's Hospital is a nonprofit, 511-bed pediatric-care facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Hartley, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 W. Broadway, Ste. 820 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 400-5822 Email: hartley@hartleyllp.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Larkin Walsh, Esq. Brandi S. Spates, Esq. Kate Marshall, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-714-7100 Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com walsh@stuevesiegel.com spates@stuevesiegel.com marshall@stuevesiegel.com RENTREPORTERS LLC: Avedisian Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against RentReporters, LLC. The case is styled as Virginia Avedisian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RentReporters, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61367-MD (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. RentReporters, LLC -- https://www.rentreporters.com/ -- is a service that reports your monthly rent payments to major credit bureaus to help build your credit score.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com REPUBLIC OF TEA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Knowles Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. THE REPUBLIC OF TEA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05878 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 2, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.republicoftea.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 and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase a Bridgerton Brothers Triple Earl Grey Tea. Plaintiff attempted to purchase a Bridgerton Brothers Triple Earl Grey Tea but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, which prevented him from doing so. The Plaintiff asserts that he suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on the Defendant's website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://www.republicoftea.com/, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal RESTAURANT DEPOT: Warren Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Annejelind Warren, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RESTAURANT DEPOT, LLC, Case No. 2024CH06305 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06513. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed at least 4 violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA" or the "Act"), as to Plaintiff and the Class, enumerated as follows: failing to develop, publish, and adhere to a publicly available retention schedule with guidelines for permanently destroying biometric data, as required by the BIPA; failing to obtain from Plaintiff and others similarly-situated a written release that notifies them, in writing, that their biometric data was being collected, stored, or otherwise obtained, and specifically why and for how long their biometric data would be collected, stored, and used, as required by the BIPA; failing to obtain Plaintiff's informed consent before disclosing, redisclosing, or otherwise disseminating their biometrics to timekeeping vendors, payroll vendors, and other private entities, as required by of the BIPA; and failing to store, transmit, and protect from disclosure the biometric data of Plaintiff and others similarly-situated in a manner that is at least as protective as other confidential and sensitive information required in the healthcare industry, as required by the BIPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Justin M. Caparco, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams St., Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com jcaparco@stephanzouras.com The Defendants are represented by: Becky M. Christensen, Esq. Lillian T. Manning, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: 314.659.2000 Facsimile: 314.659.2099 Email: bchristensen@littler.com lmanning@littler.com RESULTS CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS: Warren Files Suit in D. Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Results Customer Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Alesha Warren, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Results Customer Solutions, LLC doing business as: Results CX, Case No. 1:24-cv-00888-UNA (D. Del., July 30, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Worker Adjustment & Retraining Notification Act. Results Customer Solutions, LLC doing business as ResultsCX -- https://resultscx.com/ -- offers digital customer experience solutions for global brands, helping them accelerate revenue, optimize cost, and deliver better CX.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Loizides, Esq. LOIZIDES & ASSOCIATES Legal Arts Building 1225 King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 654-0248 Email: loizides@loizides.com ROAD RUNNER SPORTS: Stevens Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Catherine Stevens, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Road Runner Sports, Inc., Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 37-02024-00027880-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 30, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01352-CAB-AHG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Road Runner Sports -- https://www.roadrunnersports.com/ -- is an e-commerce platform that offers a large selection of running and walking gear.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Jeffrey Marc Schwartz, Esq. Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Win Pham, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jschwartz@lelawfirm.com jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com wpham@lelawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Aaron Alan Buckley, Esq. Nora J. Steinhagen, Esq. QUARLES & BRADY LLP 101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 744-3642 Fax: (619) 615-0700 Email: aaron.buckley@quarles.com nora.steinhagen@quarles.com ROBINHOOD: Parties Seeks Omnibus Sealing in Order Flow Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Robinhood Order Flow Litigation, Case No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting omnibus sealing stipulation addressing all documents filed under seal in connection with plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The Parties have identified in the below chart which documents should remain under seal and those that can be unsealed in full or publicly filed with fewer/greater redactions: Dkt. No. Document Requested Basis for Sealing Action 143-15 Exhibit L to the Maintain Contains Plaintiff's Declaration of under seal personal and/or Nicholas A. financial confidential Coulson, information. RHOFL_KWON_000162 149 Defendants' Maintain Contains Plaintiff's Opposition to redactions personal and/or Plaintiff's financial confidential Motion for Class information Certification (redacted) 143-3 Plaintiff's Unseal in full N/A Motion for Class Certification 150-12 Exhibit I to the From sealed Contains Plaintiff's Declaration of to narrow personal and/or Brandon Fetzer, redactions financial confidential Excerpted information. Deposition Transcript of Ji Kwon (sealed) On March 8, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification. On May 17, 2024, the Defendants filed their opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification The Parties determined that certain of the sealed materials can either be filed publicly in full or that fewer redactions are appropriate, while one document requires additional redactions, as indicated below; Robinhood is a stock brokerage firm, which provides brokerage clearing services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u8FBOL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Matthew Z. Robb, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 E-mail: ncoulson@ldclassaction.com mrobb@ldclassaction.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Bradley King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 E-mail: scott@bursor.com swestcot@bursor.com sbeck@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Karen P. Kimmey, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP One Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 E-mail: kkimmey@fbm.com - and - Maeve L. O'Connor, Esq. Elliot Greenfield, Esq. Brandon Fetzer, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 66 Hudson Boulevard New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com egreenfield@debevoise.com bfetzer@debevoise.com RYDER INTEGRATED: Class Settlement in Perkins Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINCY GRIFFIN PERKINS, et al., v. RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00502-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class action and representative action settlement: -- The Court preliminary finds that the settlement is the product of informed, noncollusive negotiations conducted at arms' length by the Parties. -- The Court has considered the alleged merit of Plaintiffs' claims, Defendants' potential liability and defenses, the allocation of settlement proceeds among the Participating Class Members and PAGA Employees, and the fact that the settlement represents a compromise of the Parties' respective positions. -- Solely for the purpose of settlement in accordance with the Agreement, the Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other laws applicable to preliminary settlement approval of class actions have been satisfied, and the Court hereby certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following class: Class: All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of Ryder Transportation Solutions, LLC and/or Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. employed in California at any time between Oct. 17, 2018 and Jan. 24, 2024. -- The PAGA Employees are defined as: "All current and former hourly-paid or nonexempt employees of Ryder Transportation Solutions, LLC and/or Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. employed in California at any time between October 14, 2021, and January 24, 2024." -- ILYM Group, Inc. is appointed to serve as the Settlement Administrator. Ryder Integrated provides transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qero0Q at no extra charge.[CC] SAM'S WEST: Broussard Sues Over Fruit Cups' Deceptive Labels ------------------------------------------------------------ SHAMEA BROUSSARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAM'S WEST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-04610 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Member's Mark Diced Peaches in 100% Fruit Juice and Member's Mark Mandarin Oranges fruit cups. The Defendant markets the products as being comprised of exclusively "100% fruit juice" and free of any artificial flavors or colors. However, unbeknownst to reasonable consumers, both the Diced Peaches and Mandarin Oranges contain synthetic additives: ascorbic acid and citric acid. Had the Plaintiff known that the Defendant's representations and warranties about the products were false and misleading, the Plaintiff would not have purchased the products or would have paid substantially less for them, says the suit. Sam's West, Inc. is an American chain of membership-only warehouse club retail stores, with its principal place of business in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC. 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com ben@gr-firm.com SELECT REHAB: Plaintiffs' Amended Bid for Protective Order Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, JUSTIN LEMBKE, and SCOTT HARDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. SELECT REHABILITATION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Schlesinger entered an order striking the motions listed below: -- "Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions for Defendant's Failure to Appear at Properly Noticed 30b6 Deposition" -- "Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant to Better Respond To Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and [ ] for Order Overruling Objections" -- "Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant to Better Respond to Plaintiffs' Amended First Request to Produce and for Ruling on Defendant's Objections" -- "Plaintiffs' Request for Oral Argument" -- "Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Protective Order Limiting Discovery of Opt In Plaintiffs" -- "Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief -- "Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant to Better Respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Second Request to Produce and for Ruling on Defendant's Objections" -- "Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Timekeeping and Payroll Records" -- "Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant to Better Answer Second Set of Interrogatories and for Court Ruling on Defendant's Objections" -- "Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel" -- "Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief" The Clerk is directed to keep the entry and PDF document for those pleadings discussed above in section 1 on the docket but include a designation to indicate that they are Stricken. If the parties choose to file any motions based on the subject matter stricken in section 1, or any other discovery motions going forward, the motions and the responses may not exceed the page limits allowed by Rule 3.01 of the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida. The parties will meet and agree on a joint proposed case management schedule of deadlines for moving this case forward in an efficient and timely manner. The joint proposal must be filed on or before close of business on Wednesday, August 14, 2024. This proposal should include proposed deadlines to aid this Court in resolving the issues in "Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion to Vacate Scheduling Order, Continue Trial, Set a Rule 16 Pretrial Conference or Motion for Leave of Court to File an Amended Case Management Report" and "Defendant's Motion to Extend All Discovery Deadlines and to Stay Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to Allow for Class Discovery" The parties will mutually agree upon a date, time, and place for deposing Select Rehab's Chief Information Officer, Mr. Michael Gallagher, with Plaintiffs' computer expert present, so that these individuals may work together to search and obtain the data at issue— the employee date and time stamps when entering patient data—from Select Rehab's computer system. The Court further suggests that Plaintiffs choose one class member to obtain the data for, so the parties can accurately determine how much time it will take to recover the data at issue. This deposition should be taken promptly The Court also admonished the parties on their lack of civility and cooperative efforts with each other. As this Court has stated multiple times-both in orders and during hearings -- it expects professionalism and civility. Anything less will not be tolerated. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ccGNu at no extra charge.[CC] SIEMENS MOBILITY: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Carrillo ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rogelio Carrillo, v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00556-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered a scheduling order as follows -- Motion Filing Deadline: March 7, 2025 -- Opposition Filing Deadline: April 4, 2025 -- Reply Filing Deadline: April 18, 2025 Siemens Mobility provides rail traffic technology. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3TgAQS at no extra charge.[CC] SIEVA NETWORKS: Court Junks Payne Class Status Bid -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER PAYNE, v. SIEVA NETWORKS, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00901-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting motion to deny class certification. The Plaintiff Christopher Payne brings this putative class action against Sieva Networks based on allegations that Matrack is "violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ('TCPA') by sending unsolicited telemarketing text messages to consumers whose phone numbers are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry." Payne seeks to represent the following class: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) Matrack texted more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) where the person's residential telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, (4) for substantially the same reason Defendant texted Plaintiff." Payne does not offer any evidence that phone numbers—including what he contends is his personal cell phone number—are registered with the USDOT for any non-business purpose. Payne has made no argument as to how that question can be answered without individualized inquiries. Nor has he shown "that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations" as to this question. Under these facts, the Court finds it proper to deny certification without discovery. Matrack’s motion to deny class certification is granted. Sieva Networks is an information technology service-based company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TYhAUU at no extra charge.[CC] SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Seeks to Quash Six Subpoenas in Lyngaas Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 0:24-mc-61408 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 2, 2024), Solstice moves the Court for an order quashing six subpoenas issued to the following non-parties located in this District and awarding Solstice the attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this Motion: (1) Farid Blanco of Blanco Jamis Dental Group, P.A.; (2) Marietta Del Rey of Oasis Dental Associates, P.A.; (3) Annie Infante of Razar Dental Group, Inc.; (4) Michael Mills of Michael P. Costabile, DMD, PA; (5) Rocio Quicuti of Sheridan Dental Care; and (6) Rocio Quicuti of Landent DMD, PA. Solstice is forced to seek the intervention of the Court to prevent an abuse of the discovery process by the Plaintiff in a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act that was commenced over two years ago in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by a serial TCPA litigant bearing the caption Brian J. Lyngaas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C. v. Solstice Benefits, Inc., No. 22-cv-10830. The Lawsuit is about a Fax Message sent to Solstice in-network dental care providers on April 23 and 24, 2018. The Plaintiff had over two years to conduct discovery in the Lawsuit, but issued the Subpoenas that are the subjects of this Motion on July 19, 2024, only four days before the twice-extended discovery cut-off of July 23, 2024. The six Subpoenas all seek the production within fourteen days of service -- past the discovery cut-off -- of documents that are protected by the attorney work product doctrine and that Plaintiff has sought from Solstice, including through a pending motion to compel discovery. Solstice Benefits, Inc. operates as a dental insurance agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip A. Bock, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq. Barry Blonien, Esq. BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC 820 W. 41st Street, Suite 300 Miami Beach, FL 33140 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com david@classlawyers.com jeff@classlawyers.com barry@classlawyers.com service@classlawyers.com - and - Richard E. Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, PLLC 6550 Lakeshore Street West Bloomfield, MI 48323 Telephone: 1-800-601-0808 Facsimile: 1-888-769-1774 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com lsmith@shenkanlaw.com Defendant Solstice Benefits, Inc. is represented by: Roy Taub, Esq. Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER, LLP 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (954) 491-1120 Facsimile: (954) 343-6958 E-mail: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com mary.torres@gmlaw.com roy.taub@gmlaw.com cheryl.cochran@gmlaw.com SP PLUS: Faces Fatton Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ MARC FATTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SP PLUS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05960 (N.D. Ill., July 15, 2024), asserts claims for violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Fatton was employed by Defendant from August 15, 2022, until his termination on December 21, 2023. Allegedly, Plaintiff was not paid any overtime despite working in excess of 40 hours. Among other things, Plaintiff was allegedly subjected to discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation in Defendant’s workplace because of his race, Haitian American. The class action also alleges discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation under Title 42 Section 1981 of the United States Code. SP Plus is a Delaware for-profit corporation headquartered in Chicago, IL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Bennett Hunter, Esq. HUNTER LAW FIRM PLC 101 Creekside Xing, Suite 1700-307 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 592-2977 Facsimile: (615) 628-0906 E-mail: Anne@hunterlawfirm.com SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amato Has Until August 22 to Serve Reply Brief ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joseph Amato, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Subaru of America, Inc. and Subaru Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-16118-JHR-AMD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Ann Marie Donio entered an order extending deadlines for class certification, summary judgment, daubert and limine motion briefing: 1. The deadline by which Plaintiffs shall serve their Reply brief in Support of Class Certification is extended from Aug. 15, 2024, to Aug. 22, 2024. 2. The deadline by which Defendants shall serve their Reply brief in Support of Summary Judgment is extended from Aug. 21, 2024 to Aug. 28, 2024. 3. Defendants' motions to exclude or limit the testimony of Plaintiffs' experts D.C. Sharp and Glen Bowers were filed on April 1, 2024. 4. Plaintiffs' Opposition to the pending Daubert Motions were filed on June 30, 2024. 5. Defendants' reply briefing for their Dabuert Motions is extended from Aug. 21, 2024, to Aug. 28, 2024. 6. Defendants filed their Motion in Limine to Preclude Undisclosed Expert Opinion Testimony by Seven Muhammad on July 15, 2024. 7. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' pending Motion in Limine is extended from Aug. 5, 2024, to Aug. 22, 2024. 8. Defendants' reply briefing for its Limine Motion is extended to September 23. Subaru is the United States-based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicle. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7TQyO0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Daniel C. Edelman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-700 Facsimile: (201) 307-1086 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com dedelman@kgglaw.com - and - Thomas P. Sobran, Esq. THOMAS P. SOBRAN, P.C. 7 Evergreen Lane Hingham, MA 0243 Telephone: (781) 741-6075 Facsimile: (781) 741-6074 E-mail: tsobran@sobranlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Neal Walters, Esq. Casey Watkins, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 700 East Gate Drive, Suite 330 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 761-3400 Facsimile: (856) 761-1020 E-mail: waltersn@ballardspahr.com watkinsc@ballardspahr.com SUNNOVA ENERGY: Martinez Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jose Martinez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SUNNOVA ENERGY CORP., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV16061 was removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06346. The Complaint alleges the following: Plaintiff worked more hours per shift than defendant credited him with working. The Plaintiff's hours were reduced or "shaved down" to the nearest quarter of an hour. The Plaintiff was regularly required to work off the clock without compensation. The Plaintiff was not provided 30-minute meal breaks. The Plaintiff was not provided notice of his right to meal breaks. The Plaintiff was not paid premium pay for meal periods that were missed or shortened. The Plaintiff has not provided timely and duty-free rest periods. The Plaintiff was not informed of his rights to take uninterrupted daily duty-free rest periods. The Plaintiff was not paid premium wages for the failure to provide uninterrupted rest periods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zack I. Domb, Esq Devin Rauchwerger, Esq Jeffrey P. Jackson, Esq DOMB & RAUCHWERGER LLP 1055 East Colorado Boulevard, Fifth Floor Pasadena, CA 91106 Email: zack@dombrauchwerger.com devin@dombrauchwerger.com Jeff@dombrauchwerger.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Rillo, Esq Raerani Reddy, Esq BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 101 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 291-6200 Facsimile: (415) 291-6300 Email: christopher.rillo@bakerbotts.com rani.reddy@bakerbotts.com - and - Kevin Sadler, Esq BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 1001 Page Mill Road, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: (650) 739-7500 Facsimile: (650) 739-7699 Email: kevin.sadler@bakerbotts.com SUNRISE RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ochoa Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS OCHOA as an individual and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. SUNRISE RESTAURANTS LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 24STCV17836 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 17, 2024) is a representative action for recovery of civil penalties under California Labor Code arising from the Defendants' policy and practice of requiring overtime work and not paying at the proper overtime rates for the work rendered by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants and worked in the non-exempt position of "Cook" (or a similarly titled position) from June 2022 to in or about March 2024. Despite Defendants' payment of Incentive Pay to Plaintiff, the Defendants failed to include all forms of Incentive Pay when calculating Plaintiff's regular rate of pay, thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid all of required overtime wages. Rather, the Plaintiff was only paid one and a half times his base rate, or another amount not equal to the regular rate, as Defendants failed to include the various forms of Incentive Pay earned during corresponding periods that were required to be included in the regular rate calculation, but were not, says the suit. SUNRISE RESTAURANTS, LLC is a restaurants company based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Burrows, Esq. BURROWS LAW FIRM, APC 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 526-9998 Facsimile: (424) 644-2446 E-mail: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com - and - Sean M. Novak, Esq. THE NOVAK LAW FIRM, P.C. 2609 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Manhattan Beach, Ca 90266 Telephone: (310) 921-8712 Facsimile: (310) 921-8732 E-mail: service@novaklawfirm.com SYSCO SACRAMENTO: All Fact Discovery Due July 1, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENN FITE, ET AL., v. SYSCO SACRAMENTO, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01633-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed July 1, 2025 no later than: -- Expert Discovery The parties shall Aug. 1, 2025 disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than: -- All expert discovery shall be completed Oct. 1, 2025 no later than: -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification, Sept. 27, 2024 shall be filed on or before: -- All dispositive motions, except motions Dec. 1, 2025 for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before: Sysco Sacramento provides food services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y8npdf at no extra charge.[CC] TEXAS RETINA: Faces Bennett Class Action Suit in Texas Fed. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed aainst Texas Retina Associates. The suit is captioned as MARK BENNETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs. TEXAS RETINA ASSOCIATES, Case No. DC-24-10930 (D. Tex., July 17, 2024). The case is assigned to the Hon. Ashley Wysocki. Texas Retina is doing business in retina care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett Lee Ellzey, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES Telephone: (888) 350-3931 TICKETMASTER CANADA: Quebec Consumers Sue Over Abusive Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- CTV News reports that a new class action filed against Ticketmaster on Thursday, August 1, 2024, accuses the company of charging Quebec consumers abusive and disproportionate fees when selling their 'Event Tickets.' According to law firm Paquette Gadler, which is representing complainant Felipe Morales, Ticketmaster is violating the Consumer Protection Act, the Civil Code of Quebec and Canada's Competition Act by imposing abusive fees on the sale of event tickets. The request for collective action is addressed to Quebec consumers who have purchased tickets since July 26, 2021. "This class action targets, among other things, the effect of dynamic pricing practices on the amount of service fees of all kinds imposed on consumers when they purchase Ticketmaster event tickets, a practice that has been denounced in several Western countries," reads a press release issued by the law firm Paquette Gadler. [GN] TIKTOK INC: Plaintiffs Can 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 Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order granting the plaintiffs' application under Rule 79-5 to file documents under seal. Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Highlighted versions of pages: Further Support of Their Motion 1:4 for Class Certification 2:3-7, 9-10, 12, 14, 23-25 4:15, 28 5:1-4, 10-11, 21-22 7:16-18 8:17-18, 21-24 10:24-25 11:9-14 (redacted version has been filed on the public docket) Exhibits 38-39, 41-43 to the Each exhibit is sealed in its Declaration of Y. Gloria Park in entirety Support of Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion for Class Certification Declaration of Russell W. Mangum Highlighted versions of pages III, Ph.D. in Support of 4-12 (redacted version has been Plaintiffs' Reply In Support been filed on the public docket) Motion for Class Certification, dated July 26, 2024 Expert Reply Report of Zubair Highlighted versions of pages Shafiq, Ph.D. in Support of i-ii, 3-7, 12- 16, 18-24, 26-40, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class 43, 45-48 (redacted version has Certification, dated July 26, been filed on the public docket) 2024 TikTok operates as a free service and social media application for creating and sharing short mobile videos. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6WdVUN at no extra charge.[CC] TOPEKA CORRECTIONAL: Judge Denies Certification of Inmates Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hrenchir of Topeka Capital-Journal reports that a federal judge refused Tuesday, July 30, to allow lawsuits filed by six Topeka Correctional Facility inmates, who are each serving as their own attorney, to become a class action suit. The six sought last June to combine their suits into one class action suit alleging Kansas Secretary of Corrections Jeff Zmuda and TCF Warden Donna Hook have shown deliberate indifference to their safety and health by exposing them to fungus, toxins, sewer gas and mold without adequate ventilation. Handwritten lawsuit complaints filed by the inmates -- Kora Liles, Kimberley Younger, Barbara Frantz, Micaela Spencer, Sharon Huddleston and Jennifer Lockett -- also allege the state and its food provider, Aramark Food Service, have shown deliberate indifference to their health and safety by serving them food that causes "personal injury." The inmates asked that their complaints be certified as a class action lawsuit covering all the 900-plus inmates incarcerated at TCF, the state's women's prison at 815 S.E. Rice Road. Class action suits allow for the claims of all class members -- whether they know they have been damaged or not -- to be resolved in a single proceeding through the efforts of the named plaintiffs and their legal counsel. What did the judge say? In refusing to allow the suits to become a class action suit, U.S. District Judge John W. Lungstrum cited a 2014 court decision asserting that a court may not certify a class action unless it determines the representative parties will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. That includes including taking into account the quality and experience of the attorneys who would represent that class, Lungstrum's ruling said. He noted that a 2000 federal court ruling concluded a litigant may bring his own claims to court without legal counsel but not the claims of others, because the competence of a layman is clearly too limited to risk the rights of others. Lungstrum dismissed the class action suit the six sought to pursue together as being "duplicative" of suits that each of them had each filed on their own. All six will proceed with their individual suits while continuing to serve as their own attorneys, Lungstrom said. He also issued separate orders in each of the six individual suits requiring each inmate to show cause as to why her suit should not be dismissed. The Kansas Department of Corrections doesn't comment about pending litigation, said David Thompson, its public information officer. What else did the judge say? Lungstrum's order noted that the six had earlier sought to join a lawsuit filed Feb. 16 by Topeka Correctional Facility inmate Letecia Stauch against defendants who included Zmuda. Lungstrum denied that request earlier this year, concluding any decision on the matters involved would have been premature at the time because a "Martinez Report" ordered in the Stauch case had not yet been completed. Stauch's suit includes allegations that TCF failed to address environmental and health hazards. The "Martinez Report" detailing what was subsequently found concluded her claims were unfounded for her particular cell, though Lungstrum in a court order issued Monday, July 29, gave Stauch an opportunity to respond to that. Liles, Frantz, Spencer, Huddleston and Stauch are all serving time for first-degree murder. Younger is serving time for capital murder. Lockett is serving time for forgery, theft, drug crimes and an offender registration violation. [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Hydrogen Market Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------ Toyota is the target of a class action lawsuit that claims the automaker used anticompetitive business practices to monopolize the fuel market for hydrogen cars in California, resulting in drivers paying more to fill-up their Mirai FCEVs and millions of dollars of taxpayers money to be wasted on a hydrogen station that couldn't operate. The suit, brought by a group of California taxpayers, focuses on the story of a clean energy hydrogen fuel station built in 2010 by the California State University, Los Angeles, with a state government grant. Toyota is accused of retroactively imposing tough standards on the facility that prevented it from operating, despite it meeting all other state-mandated regulations. By allegedly using its influence to remove the station from the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Partnership website -- which the plaintiffs' legal team claim is "a quasi-governmental entity that is truly run by Toyota" -- effectively blocking it from serving the public, Toyota not only stifled competition, but caused taxpayers money to be misused. The University's decision to make its clean hydrogen from water, not fossil fuels, which were the source for Toyota's own preferred hydrogen, is one of the main reasons the automaker spent seven years keeping it out of the frame, the suit alleges. Last month we reported how Mirai owners were suing Toyota for making misleading claims about the car's usability. The plaintiffs cited the shortage of operational hydrogen stations and the increasingly high cost of hydrogen fuel, which has ballooned 200 percent in the last few years and means the $15,000 fuel card Toyota gave them as a purchase incentive claiming it would give them five years of free fuel doesn't last anywhere near as long in reality. They also complained that the the 357-mile (575 km) and 402-mile (647 km) range of the Toyota Mirai Limited and XLE were totally unrealistic and that it was common for the real range to be 100 miles (160 km) lower. All of those factors conspired to make a Mirai worth just 19 percent of its original value after five years, they say. Earlier this year, Toyota was offering a $40k discount on a $67k Mirai, making it almost as affordable as a Corolla. [GN] TRANS UNION: Redactions and Sealing Requests Warranted in Brooks ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM NORMAN BROOKS, III, v. TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00048-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Court entered an order finding all but one of the parties' proposed redactions and sealing requests are warranted under both the common law and the First Amendment. Mr. Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleges that Trans Union violated section 1681e(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it sold third party creditors consumer reports that erroneously showed the consumers had filed for bankruptcy. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of individuals about whom Trans Union allegedly sold similarly erroneous reports. Trans Union opposes Plaintiff's motion, and in support of its opposition, Trans Union seeks to use Corinne Wodzinski, a 20-year employee of the company, as an expert in Trans Union's algorithms for matching data and public records to consumer files. The Plaintiff has moved to preclude Wodzinski's expert report and testimony as inadmissible under the standard outlined in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Also, the Plaintiff has moved to strike Trans Union's supplemental exhibit, to Wodzinski's expert report. Before the Court is an amended joint motion to file redacted copies of certain documents filed in support of the parties’ respective positions as to these pending motions. In January 2022, the Plaintiff brought a putative class action complaint against Trans Union, which he amended the following month. Plaintiff now seeks to certify a single class of individuals seeking relief under § 1681e of the FCRA: "All natural persons with an address in the United States and its Territories about whom Defendant sold a consumer report to a third party from Jan. 6, 2020 to Jan. 31, 2023 which included a bankruptcy remark on a tradeline, but with no reference to a bankruptcy record in the public record section of the same report, and for whom there is no government-held public record of a bankruptcy filing within ten (10) years prior to the date of the report." TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XN8hxZ at no extra charge.[CC] Attorney for Nonparty Bank of America, N.A. Catalina Vergara, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope St., 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 E-mail: cvergara@omm.com TRANSUNION LLC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by June 27, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLEY KAPLAN, v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02438-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered a scheduling order: Event Deadline Defendant's response to the Complaint Aug. 12, 2024 Substantial Completion of Document Production Jan. 31, 2024 Plaintiff's disclosure of any expert(s) related Feb. 28, 2025 to class certification Defendant's disclosure of rebuttal expert(s) March 28, 2025 related to class certification Deadline for deposition(s) for expert(s) April 30, 2025 related to class certification Deadline for Daubert motion(s) related to May 30, 2025 class certification and Plaintiff's motion for class certification Defendant's opposition to class certification June 27, 2025 Plaintiff's reply in support of class July 31, 2025 certification Completion of all fact discovery July 31, 2025 Disclosure of merit expert(s) by parties with Aug. 1, 2025 the burden of proof Disclosure of rebuttal merit expert(s) Sept. 30, 2025 Completion of merit expert discovery Oct. 31, 2025 Deadline to file Daubert and dispositive Nov. 28, 2025 motion(s) Oppositions to Daubert and dispositive motion(s) Dec. 31, 2025 Trans Union operates as a global information and insights company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4INhe5 at no extra charge.[CC] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Alberta Court Certifies Employment Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo!Finance reports that a pair of law firms say an Alberta court has certified a class action alleging Uber Technologies Inc. has so much control over drivers and couriers in the province that it constitutes employment. McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP and Duboff Edwards Schachter Law Corp. say the ride-hailing giant has misclassified the employment status of Alberta drivers and delivery people. They say the misclassification has deprived workers of protections and benefits under employment standards legislation like minimum wage, overtime, vacation and holiday pay. The allegations have yet to be proven in the Alberta Court of Kings Bench, where the class action was filed. Uber classifies its drivers and couriers as independent contractors because they can choose when, where and how often they work, but in exchange, they have no job security or access to many benefits that are typical of employment. "We believe we can make app-based work better for drivers and delivery people. That's why for the last two years, Uber and UFCW Canada, Canada's largest private sector union, have been providing over 140,000 drivers and delivery people on the Uber platform with strong representation and advocating for government reforms to provide drivers and delivery people new benefits while preserving the flexibility of their work," Uber Canada spokesperson Keerthana Rang said in a statement.[GN] UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Lo Class Action Suit Over False Price Discounts ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNATHAN LO on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., a Maryland corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. e 3:24-cv-01258-IM (D. Or., Aug. 2, 2024) alleges that the Defendant has continually advertised false price discounts for merchandise sold throughout its Under Armour Factory outlet stores. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy this deception and its attendant harm to consumers. The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief from the Defendant arising from its false discounting scheme on apparel, accessories, shoes, and other items sold in its Under Armour Factory outlet stores and the outlet portion of its e-commerce website, underarmour.com/en-us/c/outlet/. This putative class action is about holding a multimillion-dollar company accountable to its customers who have been deceived by a years-long campaign to trick them into paying more for Under Armour's fashion merchandise through the widespread and perpetual use of false reference and discount pricing. The Plaintiff went shopping for some new clothing at the Under Armour Factory outlet store located at 1001 North. Arney Road, Suite 610, Woodburn, Oregon. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Class members pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks certification of the following Class against Defendant: "All persons who, within the State of Oregon and within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action, purchased from a Under Armour Factory store (in-person or online) one or more products at discounts from an advertised reference price and who have not received a refund or credit for their purchase(s)." Under Armour, Inc. is an American sportswear company that manufactures footwear and apparel headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, P.S., Esq. Joan M. Pradhan, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700, Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 667-0249 E-mail: jpradhan@tousley.com kstephens@tousley.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. James B. Drimmer, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1234 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com jim@lcllp.com US PAROLE: Lewis Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LEWIS, et al., v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02182-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class without prejudice to afford the Plaintiffs the opportunity to refine their class definition and take discovery as to the size of their putative class. The Plaintiffs' claims are not moot because they fall under the mootness exception for inherently transitory claims. Therefore, USPC's 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be denied. The Plaintiffs have adequately alleged APA claims for which relief can be granted. The Plaintiffs have also pleaded a facially plausible claim for relief under the Mandamus Act, and while the Court is uncertain that a mandamus claim and an APA claim can both survive a motion to dismiss, the court will not dismiss the mandamus claim and an APA claim can both survive a motion to dismiss, the court will not dismiss the mandamus claim because USPC has not raised the issue. However, the Plaintiffs' ultra vires claim cannot survive USPC's motion to dismiss alongside their well-pleaded APA claim. Therefore, USPC's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be denied with respect to the Plaintiff's claim for relief under the Mandamus Act and their claim for relief under APA but granted with respect to their claim for ultra vires review. Finally , the Plaintiffs have not yet shown by a preponderance of the evidence that their putative class is sufficiently numerous to satisfy Rule 23'a numerosity requirement. Moreover, Plaintiffs have proposed a class definition that sweeps too broadly and therefore fails to meet Rule 23's commonality requirement. A separate order shall issue, pursuant to which the parties shall meet and confer to initiate the discovery process. The Court will deny USPC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs APA and mandamus claims but grant it as to plaintiff's ultra vires claim. Also pending in this case is the plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Certify a Class. The Court will deny the motion without prejudice to give the plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct limited discovery as to the size of their putative class before attempting certification again. The plaintiffs Charles Lewis, Anthony Mack, Carlton Paige, and Darin Hagins, on behalf of a putative class of parolees in the District of Columbia, bring this action alleging that the United States Parole Commission has failed to comply with its statutory and regulatory obligations to either hold timely early termination hearings for parolees or else terminate their parole. The Plaintiffs are District of Columbia parolees who allege that USPC has failed to either provide timely early termination hearings or release them from parole as required. At the time of his original class action complaint, filed in July of 2022, plaintiff Charles Lewis alleged that he had been on parole for eight years and six months without an early termination hearing. USPC is the agency that oversees the parole system for violators of D.C. and federal law. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U6ivCG at no extra charge.[CC] VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as POTTER v. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al. (VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:15-cv-07658-MAS-RLS (D.N.J.), the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the matter as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3); 2. Certifying Tucson as a Class Representative; and 3. Appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as Class Counsel. Valeant is an American-Canadian multinational specialty pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UWKOoi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com jscullion@seegerweiss.com - and - James E. Barz, Esq. Frank A. Richter, Esq. Cameran M. Gilliam, Esq. Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Christopher R. Kinnon, Esq. Robert J. Robbins, Esq. Kathleen B. Douglas, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (630) 696-4107 E-mail: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com frichter@rgrdlaw.com cgilliam@rgrdlaw.com darrenr@rgrdlaw.com ckinnon@rgrdlaw.com rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com kdouglas@rgrdlaw.com VAXART INC: Himmelberg Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. (VAXART, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will ask the Court on Oct. 10, 2024, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) to: (i) certify a Class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded shares of Common Stock of Vaxart, Inc. or purchased Call Options or sold Put Options thereon, between June 25, 2020 and July 24, 2020, inclusive, and were damaged thereby ("Section 10(b) Class"); (ii) certify a Subclass of all persons or entities who purchased publicly traded Vaxart Common Stock contemporaneously with the June 26 and 29, 2020 sales of Vaxart Common Stock by the Defendants Armistice Capital, LLC, Armistice Capital Master Fund Ltd. ("Armistice Master Fund"), Steven J. Boyd, or Keith Maher, and were damaged thereby ("Section 20A Subclass"); (iii) appoint Plaintiffs Wei Huang, Langdon Elliott, and Ani Hovhannisyan as Class Representatives; and (iv) appoint Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP ("Hagens Berman") and Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as Class Counsel. The Court denied class certification without prejudice, finding that the parties' initial submissions failed to narrow in on the unique facts of this case and did not provide sufficient evidence to decide class treatment. In particular, the Court expressed concern that this is "not your typical securities case” where defendants misled the investing public, causing the stock price to be artificially inflated, only to have "the truth 'come to light suddenly'" after a bombshell announcement. Vaxart is an American biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of oral recombinant vaccines administered using temperature-stable tablets that can be stored and shipped without refrigeration. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xYE82R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Raffi Melanson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com raffim@hbsslaw.com - and - William C. Fredericks, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com wfredericks@scott-scott.com jjacobson@scott-scott.com - and - Brian J. Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 Facsimile: (310) 388-0192 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com VAXART INC: Plaintiffs Seek Sealing of Class Cert Documents ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. (VAXART, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order preliminarily sealing portions of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel and Exhibits A and D to the Declaration of Reed R. Kathrein in support of Plaintiffs' Motion, which reference and/or quote another party's materials that have been designated as confidential, pending a final determination as to whether such material should be sealed. Vaxart is an American biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of oral recombinant vaccines administered using temperature-stable tablets that can be stored and shipped without refrigeration. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h8ccXI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Raffi Melanson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com raffim@hbsslaw.com - and - William C. Fredericks, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com wfredericks@scott-scott.com jjacobson@scott-scott.com - and - Brian J. Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 Facsimile: (310) 388-0192 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com VERISK ANALYTICS: Shares Driving Data, Flores & Abolfathian Say --------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON FLORES and REZA ABOLFATHIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VERISK ANALYTICS, INC. and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07800 (D.N.J., July 16, 2024) accuses Hyundai of deceiving consumers like Plaintiffs into sharing a wide array of their driving data, including location data, under the guise of improving users' driving safety--and then selling that data to third parties like Verisk for millions of dollars a year. The Plaintiffs allege that Verisk is selling this unreliable and decontextualized driving data to insurance companies -- who in turn use the data to substantially increase consumers' auto insurance rates. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert claims for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, and for violations of California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Plaintiffs now seek to recover statutory, actual, compensatory, consequential, punitive, and nominal damages, as well as restitution and/or disgorgement of profits unlawfully obtained, injunctive relief, and all other just and proper relief on behalf of all persons whose driving data was unlawfully captured, stored, and/or transferred or sold by Defendants without full notice or consent. Headquartered in Jersey City, NJ, Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a data analytics and risk assessment firm. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Connor P. Hayes, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com connorh@lcllp.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com VICTORS SUSHI: Plaintiffs Seek Conditional Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA GARRETT, LYN TIEFERT and BROOKLYN CUNDIFF, v. VICTORS SUSHI, LLC and VICTORS SUSHI 2 LLC d/b/a VICTOR’S SUSHI and VICTOR SEBASTIAN and FRANCISCO SEBASTIAN, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-00730-MEH (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certify this case to proceed as a "collective Action" under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and define the class as "All waiters who worked on or after who had to provide 5% of all sales/had to provide tips to owners." 2. Approving the Notice and Consent to Join form (attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Jacob Aronauer); 3. Directing the Plaintiffs to deliver the Notice and Consent to Join form to all potential collective action members via first- class U.S. Mail; 4. Directing the Defendants to post the Notice and Consent to Join form, in English and Spanish, in conspicuous places in their place of business for a period of 60 days; 5. Directing the Defendants to include a copy of the Notice and Consent to Join form, in English and Spanish, in two consecutive pay envelopes of all putative collective action members currently employed by the Defendants; 6. Directing the Defendants to produce the names, addresses and dates of employment of all potential class members within 14 days of the Court's order so that Plaintiffs may disseminate the Notice and Consent to Join form in a timely fashion; and 7. Directing that the putative class members shall have 60 days from the date Plaintiffs disseminates the Notice in which to opt-in to the action. The Defendants allegedly steal a portion tips earned from their waiters by requiring their waiters to provide 5% of all gross sales to management. By doing so, the Defendants have violated and continue to violate 28 U.S.C. section 203(m)(2)(B) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Pursuant to the FLSA at 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order permitting Defendant' current and former waiters at the Brush, CO location only to receive notice of this action so that they might have the opportunity to join the lawsuit and recover the tips that were stolen from them. Victors Sushi is a sushi restaurant. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1s9TJ6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, NY 10007 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com Telephone: (212) 323-6980 WARNER MUSIC: Hall Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HALL, an individual; and LANCE HOPPEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., a Delaware Corporation; WARNER MUSIC INC., a Delaware Corporation; and WARNER RECORDS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00457 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order that the action brought against the Defendants be certified as a class action for the following "Classes" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ("Rule 23"): Rule 23(b)(2) Class: "All persons and entities in the United States, their agents, successors in interest, assigns, heirs, executors, trustees, and administrators who are currently being paid foreign streaming royalties and are parties to agreements with Defendants, and their predecessors and subsidiaries, whose contract contains a California or New York choice of law provision and does not expressly provide for royalties for digital streaming (whether described as "on-demand usages" or "streaming usages" or otherwise) and their music was streamed in a foreign country." Rule 23(b)(3) Class: "All persons and entities in the United States, their agents, successors in interest, assigns, heirs, executors, trustees, and administrators who have been paid foreign streaming royalties and are or were parties to agreements with Defendants, and their predecessors and subsidiaries, whose contract contains a California or New York choice of law provision and does not expressly provide for royalties for digital streaming (whether described as "on-demand usages" or "streaming usages" or otherwise) and their music was streamed in a foreign country." Excluded from the Classes are Defendants, Defendants' affiliates and subsidiaries, employees of Defendants, including their officers and directors, and the Court to which this case is assigned. Warner Music is an American multinational entertainment and record label conglomerate. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kp8fTn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Matthew A. Pearson PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8304 E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com bpouya@pwfirm.com mapearson@pwfirm.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Nicole Ramirez-Jones, Esq. Haley G. Clark, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law ramirezjones@kiesel.law clark@kiesel.law - and - Neville L. Johnson, Esq. Douglas L. Johnson, Esq. Daniel B. Lifschitz, Esq. JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP 439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 975-1080 Facsimile: (310) 975-1095 E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com djohnson@jjllplaw.com dlifschitz@jjllplaw.com - and - John J. Griffin, Esq. Michael A. Johnson, Esq. KAY GRIFFIN PLLC 222 Second Ave. North, Suite 340M Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 742-4800 Facsimile: (615) 742-4801 E-mail: john.griffin@kaygriffin.com mjohnson@kaygriffin.com WELLS FARGO: Former Employees Sue Over Prescription Drugs Program ----------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Tong, writing for Fierce Healthcare, Wells Fargo is the most recent corporation to get sued, as alleged by former employees, for inadequately overseeing the price workers were forced to pay for prescription drug prices. In a class action lawsuit filed in federal court named Navarro et al v. Wells Fargo Company, employees say the company did not fulfill its fiduciary obligations. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, employers are required to adequately manage employee benefits programs. The plaintiffs argue Wells Fargo's management of the prescription drugs program resulted in higher premiums, out-of-pocket costs and limited wage growth because of the prices it agreed to pay Express Scripts, one of its pharmacy benefit managers, for generic drugs. Employees, they say in the suit, were forced to pay nearly $10,000 for a a prescription of fingolimod, used to treat multiple sclerosis, when the generic version could be purchased without insurance for less than a $1,000 at pharmacies like Cost Plus Drugs and Rite Aid. "No prudent fiduciary would agree to make its plan and participants/beneficiaries pay a price that is fifteen times higher than the price available to anyone who just walks into a pharmacy and pays without using their insurance," the plaintiffs said in the lawsuit. Across approximately 300 generic drugs, Wells Fargo and Express Scripts made employees pay a markup on average of 114.97% what it costs pharmacies to obtain the drugs, the lawsuit alleges. For specialty drugs, employees said they paid a markup of 383% on average. Other prescriptions were far more expensive for employees at Express Scripts' pharmacy Accredo. Bexarotene gel, available at Rite Aid for $3,750, cost employees nearly $70,000 from Accredo. "The price discrepancies noted herein are illustrative of a pervasive and systematic problem of unreasonable prescription drug charges, despite well-known alternatives available to defendants," the lawsuit said. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit say Wells Fargo should have received better rates from Express Scripts or a different PBM, guided employees to more cost-effective options or utilized a pass-through PBM that doesn't use spread pricing. Wells Fargo was also tagged with accusations that it should have operated with more expertise given its standing in the industry. Plaintiffs noted Wells Fargo publishes research on the economics of the pharma industry, hosts an annual healthcare conference with speakers from major PBMs, operates an employee benefits consulting practice and has publicly warned about rising prescription drug costs and business practices by Express Scripts. A similar lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson in February by the same law firm, Fairmark Partners. "This case alleges that Wells Fargo has failed its employees once again, this time by agreeing to obviously unreasonable terms and prices with its PBM that cause workers to vastly overpay for prescription drugs," said Michael Lieberman, an attorney with Fairmark Partners. "After years of scrutiny and with clear alternatives available, there are no excuses left for a large corporation like Wells Fargo to ignore its legal obligation to identify reasonable prescription drug coverage options for its employees." Mark Cuban, founder of Cost Plus Drugs, said in a X post that this type of lawsuit can be expected to occur more often. "This lawsuit is going to happen over and over and over with self insured companies until they realize they have to drop their big 3 PBM and use a Pass Through PBM," he said. "The good news is if they switch they will save money and get control of their claims data." As well as the Wells Fargo health plan, top human resource employees were also named as defendants in the lawsuit. Wells Fargo and Express Scripts did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fierce Healthcare. Aon, the broker for Wells Fargo, was also listed in the lawsuit. Express Scripts was not listed as a defendant. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Mismanaged Plan's Prescription Drug Cost, Navarro Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO NAVARRO, THERESA GAMAGE, DAYLE BULLA, and JANE KINSELLA, on their own behalf, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Wells Fargo & Company Health Plan and its component plans, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, MICHAEL BRANCA, MARK HICKMAN, DREW WINELAND, DAVID GALLOREESE, BEI LING, and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-03043 (D. Minn., July 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and mismanaged Wells Fargo's prescription-drug benefits program, costing their ERISA plan and their employees millions of dollars in the form of higher payments for prescription drugs, higher premiums, higher out-of-pocket costs, and lower wages or limited wage growth. The Defendants' mismanagement is evident from, among other things, the prices it agreed to pay one of its vendors, its Pharmacy Benefits Manager (PBM), for many generic drugs that are widely available at drastically lower prices. The burden for that overpayment falls on both the Plan and its participants/beneficiaries. The Plan itself pays most of the agreed amount from Plan assets, while Plan participants/beneficiaries pay more in the form of increased premiums and increased out-of-pocket costs. The Plaintiffs and the Class seek recovery for injuries to the Plan sustained as a result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions. Wells Fargo & Company is a multinational financial services company headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Amanda Williams, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com awilliams@gustafsongluek.com - and - Jamie Crooks, Esq. Michael Lieberman, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 1001 G Street NW, Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (619) 507-4182 Email: jamie@fairmarklaw.com michael@fairmarklaw.com WHOLE FOODS: Safari Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA SAFARI, PEYMON KHAGHANI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and FARM FORWARD, on behalf of the general public, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, MRS. GOOCH'S NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC. doing business as Whole Foods Market, a California Corporation, Case No. 8:22-cv-01562-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their ex parte application to continue the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and related deadlines. The Plaintiffs request that the current class certification schedule be vacated and that the date of Sept. 20, 2024, be set for the Plaintiffs' filing of a motion to amend the Complaint. On July 25, 2023, the Court entered an order setting the schedule for the Motion for Class Certification briefing. On May 10, 2024, the parties stipulated to extend the briefing schedule and hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court signed the parties' proposed order on May 13, 2024, setting a new briefing schedule with Plaintiffs' motion due by Aug. 6, 2024, The Defendants' opposition due by September 17, 2024, and Plaintiffs' reply due Oct. 15, 2024, and setting the hearing regarding Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for Nov. 19, 2024. On July 23, 2024, the Plaintiffs provided the Defendants with a written proposal to modify the case schedule pursuant to Plaintiffs' proposal to amend the operative Complaint; the Plaintiffs also sought consent from Defendants to amend the operative Complaint to add Amazon. The Plaintiffs informed Defendants on July 26, 2024, that they would seek the extension ex parte if the Defendants did not agree to a stipulation by July 30, 2024. Whole Foods retails organic and natural foods. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KpM6GC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paige M. Tomaselli, Esq. Dylan D. Grimes, Esq. GRIME LAW LLP 730 Arizona Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 747-5095 E-mail: ptomaselli@grimelaw.com dgrimes@grimelaw.com Gretchen Elsner, Esq. ELSNER LAW & POLICY, LLC 314 South Guadalupe Street, Suite 123 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 303-0980 E-mail: gretchen@elsnerlaw.org WILLIAM LEE: Bid to Clarify Class Certification Briefing OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TENNESSEE CONFERENCE of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the ADVANCEMENT of COLORED PEOPLE, et al., v. WILLIAM LEE, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01039 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiffs' pending motion for clarification as to class certification briefing. The Sixth Circuit vacated the undersigned's class certification order and remanded the case for "reconsideration of the motion for class certification" because of the State's policy changes announced on July 21, 2023. More specifically, the Sixth Circuit decided "it would be premature" for it "to review the certification decision" because it was "unclear how the [July 2023] policies are being implemented and how, if at all, the new policies affect the class certification analysis." If the State has since revised or otherwise made any changes to its policies or procedures for voting rights restoration (i.e., made any changes that were not announced on July 21, 2023), it shall file a notice identifying such changes on or before Thursday, Aug. 1, 2024. On or before Wednesday, Aug. 14, 2024, the parties shall file supplemental briefs, not to exceed ten pages in length, addressing how, if at all, the July 2023 policy changes and any changes identified by the State in response to this Order affect the class certification analysis. A copy of the Court's order dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=egYuW9 at no extra charge.[CC] WISCONSIN: Elmhdati Dismissed w/o Prejudice from Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES R. WASHINGTON, HECTOR CUBERO, JR., DERRICK JONES, LORENZO JOHNSON, DEYONTAE CORNAIL STINSON, WILLIE MCDOUGLE, and MOHAMED ELMHDATI, v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, KEVIN A. CARR, JARED HOY, MELISSA ROBERTS, CHRISTOPHER STEVENS, and JOHN KIND, Case No. 2:24-cv-00391-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff Mohamed Elmhdati's motion to withdraw from case, construed as a voluntary notice of dismissal, be and the same is adopted; Plaintiff Mohamed Elmhdati be and the same is hereby dismissed without prejudice from this action; -- The Plaintiffs James Washington, Derrick Jones, and Willie McDougle be and the same is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice from this action for the failure to pay their initial partial filing fees; -- The Plaintiffs Hector Cubero, Jr., Lorenzo Johnson, and Deyontae Cornail Stinson shall inform the Court, by filing on the docket, on or before Aug. 19, 2024, whether they will obtain legal representation to attempt to pursue class certification, or whether they will proceed pro se on behalf of only themselves; the failure to timely comply with this requirement may result in the dismissal without prejudice of this case; and -- The Plaintiff Lorenzo Johnson's motion for an extension of time to pay the initial partial filing fee, be and the same is denied as moot. Wisconsin Department of Corrections is an administrative department responsible for corrections in Wisconsin, including state prisons and community supervision. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OIm1dk at no extra charge.[CC] WOW RESTAURANT: Chen Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANHONG CHEN and LUTONG YANG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. WOW RESTAURANT TH LLC d/b/a Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ and TRINH HUYNH, Case No. 8:23-cv-01602-VMC-UAM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the time for them to file their class certification motion and adjourning the upcoming mediation that is scheduled for Aug. 5, 2024. The Plaintiff proposes the following schedule: a. Plaintiff move for Class Certification Sept. 13, 2024 on or before: b. Defendants time to oppose Plaintiffs Oct. 13, 2024 Class Certification Motion should be on or before: c. The parties shall hold their mediation Oct. 10, 2024 on: d. Mediation Should be completed by: Oct. 11, 2024 The plaintiff is still waiting on an administrator to be appointed for plaintiff Lutong Yang and as a result plaintiff is requesting for the mediation be adjourned to October 10, 2024. The parties have selected this day for this should give plaintiff time to obtain the administrator for plaintiff Lutong Yang and Mediator Burruezo's space was limited throughout most of September. In addition, due to plaintiff not receiving the administrator yet, plaintiff would not be able to have all their class representatives ahead of their class certification motion and therefore request that the briefing be extended to forty-five (45) days from today. The forty-five days should provide plaintiff enough time to receive the administrator for plaintiff Yang and prepare their papers ahead of the deadline. The court should find that granting the above request would not prejudice any party in the above referenced case since defendant's consent to the above extension request. The Defendant operates restaurant business. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=74JDNV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. John Troy, Esq. Tiffany Troy, 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 - and - Locksley O. Wade, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOCKSLEY O. WADE 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 933-9180 Facsimile: (212) 933-9181 E-mail: wade@wadefirm.com WYNDHAM VACATION: Evidentiary Hearing on Class Cert Bid Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN ERIC KIRCHNER, ELIZABETH LEE KIRCHNER, and ROBERT GRANT WESTON, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00436-RGA-LDH (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a two-day evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and that plaintiffs be granted leave to file a Trial Plan. The Plaintiffs request that a two day hearing be scheduled so that the Court may hear evidence on (i) the way in which Wyndham timeshares work, (ii) how Wyndham sales presentations involve uniform podium presentations, and (iii) the common omissions in these sales presentations. The Plaintiffs would call six witnesses: Steven Kirchner, Elizabeth Kirchner, Robert Weston, John Wheeler, Wyndham Director of Sales Training, Kevin Maciulewicz, Wyndham Limited Availability Team Leader, and Danielle Henderson, Former Vice President Wyndham Resort Operations. The Plaintiffs would also introduce Wyndham documents as exhibits to show the material omissions. The Plaintiffs have prepared an eleven page Trial Plan which will serve as a road map to both the evidentiary hearing and a trial. The Trial Plan contains thirty-three record citations to deposition testimony and Wyndham documents. In addition, Plaintiffs have prepared an appendix to the Trial Plan with thirty record citations to deposition testimony to support class certification. Wyndham is an American hospitality company based in Parsippany, New Jersey. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 30, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AuQH1k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Herbert W. Mondros, Esq. RIGROSKY LAW, P.A. 1007 Orange St., Suite 453 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com gms@re-legal.com hwm@rl-legal.com - and - Howard B. Prossnitz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD B. PROSSNITZ 1014 Ontario Street Oak Park, IL 60302 Telephone: (708) 203-5747 E-mail: prossnitzlaw@gmail.com YAMAYA USA: Faces Ortega Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- ROMARIO ORTEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YAMAYA USA, INC. and JAPAN PREMIUM BEEF, INC. and HIRAI TAKAYUKI, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05743 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a butcher, machine maintenance worker, and delivery person from in or around July 2016 until in or around June 2024. Yamaya USA, Inc. is a food manufacturer and distributor based in New York, New York. Japan Premium Beef, Inc. is a specialty butcher shop located in Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 ZANDER GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jones Extended to August 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM H. "CHIP" JONES, II, v. ZANDER GROUP HOLDINGS, INC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00687 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Alistair Newbern entered an order that the parties granting the joint motion to amend certain deadlines set by the initial case management order. -- The deadline to file any motion for class certification is extended to Aug. 28, 2024. -- No trial date has been set. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qJGqgV at no extra charge.[CC] [*] Court Approves Class Settlement to Protect Iraqi Immigrants  ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ann Mullen of ACLU Michigan reports that on July 31, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan approved the settlement agreement in the nationwide class action lawsuit, Hamama v. Adducci, on behalf of some 1400 Iraqis, many of whom U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had arrested without warning and threatened with immediate deportation. The settlement ensures that Iraqis will not be indefinitely detained. It also protects Iraqis with old removal orders from being arrested and held in detention simply because they seek to regularize their immigration status. The court will enter a signed order on the settlement in the coming days. "We are proud that our work helped stop the needless detention and deportation of hundreds of people, who otherwise would have been separated from their families and sent to a country where they faced possible torture and death," said Miriam Aukerman, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan. "Too often, immigrants are locked up for months or years for absolutely no reason other than they want what so many of us have already, the chance to build a life in America. The settlement will make it easier for them to do that." In 2017, the ACLU sued the federal government because ICE began arresting Iraqi nationals and intended to deport them immediately to Iraq. Most had been living in the United States for decades, but were previously ordered deported, either for technical immigration violations or for past convictions. Because the Iraqi government had long refused to issue travel documents for potential deportees, the United States has been unable to deport them. But in 2017, ICE arrested hundreds of Iraqis with old removal orders, hoping to deport them. The ACLU argued that deporting Iraqis could result in possible harm including torture and death, and asked the court that they be allowed time to reopen their immigration cases based on the changed country conditions or legal developments in the decades since their cases were decided. The court granted this relief in 2017. However, because ICE continued to hold hundreds of Iraqis in detention, the ACLU returned to court and obtained orders in 2018 requiring that detention be individually assessed at a bond hearing, and requiring release of those detained longer than six months. Although the federal government successfully appealed the courts' rulings, the class action lawsuit enabled hundreds of Iraqis to be released from detention to be with their families while pursuing their immigration cases. Many have been granted asylum or legal residence, and some, like the lead plaintiff Sam Hamama, are now U.S. citizens. "The uncertainty endured by hundreds of class members for over seven years has had devastating consequences," said Mr. Hamama. "We believe the outlined terms of the settlement agreement provide a fair resolution and is a crucial step towards ensuring a just and humane immigration process. For me personally, the decisions from this case gave me the time to reopen my case in immigration court, become a US citizen, and remain here with my family." "We are grateful to have had the chance to fight on behalf of people who so often are ignored or senselessly demonized," said Kimberly Scott, Miller Canfield principal and class counsel. "This case was always about ensuring that every person has their day in court as our constitution guarantees all people. This settlement agreement furthers that goal." The lawsuit, Hamama v. Adducci, was filed against ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. attorney general in the U.S. District Court/Eastern Michigan District. In addition to the ACLU, the nationwide class-action lawsuit was brought by the law firm Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone, Professor Margo Schlanger, CODE Legal Aid, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, and International Refugee Assistance Project. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***