/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240815.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 15, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 164 Headlines 420 REAL ESTATE: Court Requires Carter to File Status Report ADVANCE STORES: Parties Must File Joint Scheduling Report ADVANCED WINDSHIELD: Fails to Properly Pay Installers, Rossie Says ALLIED PROPERTY: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Amended to Sept. 11 ALLURE INTIMATE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AMAZON.COM INC: Parties in De Coster Can Provisionally Seal Docs ASH & ERIE INC: Competello Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AUTONATION FORD: Faces Safouri Wage-and-Hour Suit in California BALDOVIN CONST: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Thurman BELLA ELEVATOR: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Pierce Suit BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Bid to Dismiss Hernandez Suit Granted in Part BMW OF NORTH: Seeks to Modify Class Certification Briefing Deadline BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Faces Securities Class Suit in Delaware BOAT TOWN INC: McNamara Suit Removed to W.D. Texas BOB EVANS: Mitchell Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Kitchen Managers CAMELOT REALTY: Faces Lagos Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. CGB ENTERPRISES: Bid to Stay Proceedings in Hayes Suit Denied CLEMENS FOOD: Seaboard Deal in Pork Antitrust Suit Has Prelim. OK CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Settlement in Melluci Suit Gets Final Nod COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Parties Must Submit Joint Scheduling Report CRICKET WIRELESS: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania CVVG MANAGEMENT: Saldana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DAVIDSBEENHERE.COM: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DIOCESE OF CAMDEN: Certain Underwriters Appeals Ruling to 3rd Cir. DITA INC: Visually Impaired Can't Access Online Store, Jones Says DNA DIAGNOSTICS CENTER: McClain Files Suit in S.D. Ohio DUANE MORRIS: Garland Sues Over Systematic Misclassification DUPONT DE NEMOURS: Hall Bid for Summary Judgment Granted ELIZABETH CABRASER: Court Tosses Larkin Request to Stay Action ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Norman Files Another 4th Cir. Appeal ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Phillips Suit Seeks Proper OT Wages EQUIFAX: Holloway Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus in FCRA Suit ERIC MICHAEL GARCETTI: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Bid Granted in Part EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Batts Sues Over Failure to Secure PII EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: St-Louis Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas FCA US: Bid for Class Certification in Pistorio Reset to August 22 FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: Class Settlement in Berry Suit Gets Initial Nod FLYING WINGS: Class Certification & Decertification Bid Due Nov. 18 FORD MOTOR: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Dolan FQSR LLC: Moore Suit Removed to S.D. New York FRANK NANI: Bonilla Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages GEMINI MOTORS NJ: Rubenacker Suit Removed to D. New Jersey GIANNELLA'S MODERN: Parties Must Submit Amended Scheduling Order GOODYEAR TIRE: Edwards Suit Removed to C.D. California GOOGLE LLC: Uses YouTube Videos Without Consent, Millette Claims GRACO CHILDREN'S: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Carder Due Dec. 3 HCI LLC: Yaunney Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT: Scott Sues Over Major Data Breach HEALTHEQUITY INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Smith Says HEALTHEQUITY INC: Jesky Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info HEALTHY CHOICE: Faces Ortega Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices HERTZ LOCAL: Hussain Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation HIGH TIMES: Doniuses Sue Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website IICOMBINED USA: Jones Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website INDIVIOR PLC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit INMAR BRAND: Holmes Bid to Compel Class Discovery Denied INTER-NOVA CONTRACTING: Faces Moran Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. IPLEX PIPELINES: Faces Leaky Pipes Class Suit in Australian Court JERICO PICTURES: Cotton Sues Over Major Cyberattack JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Hofmann Claims JSW STEEL: Davison Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LAND ROVER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid w/o Prejudice LANOCORP USA: Cosmetics Do Not Contain "Collagen," Kouyate Claims LEGACY TOUCH: Unlawfully Collects Customers' Biometrics, Mayo Says LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing of Class Cert Reply Extended to Dec. 6 LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Mitchell Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. MAERSK INC: Class Settlement Deal in Leon Gets Initial Nod MAGNOLIA BANK: Class Certification Filing Extended to Jan. 6, 2025 MAISON EX NIHILO: Larsen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARY MAHONEY'S: Sells Foreign Fish to Consumers, McCain Suit Says MATTRESS FIRM: Hampton Sues Over False Reference Price & Sale Price MAUREEN CORCORAN: Magistrate Judge's R&R Partly Accepted MDL 2873: Marzalen Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Locatell v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025 MISSISSIPPI: Appeals Ruling in Jones Class Suit to 5th Circuit MULTIPLAN INC: Conspires to Suppress Provider Payments, Suit Claims NADA #1 INC: Mason Sues Over Unpaid OT, Breach of Contract NBT BANCORP: Bid for Class Certification in Richey Due May 30, 2025 NEEKA INC: McDougal Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Kentucky NEIMAN MARCUS: Reichbart Sues Over Failure to Secure PII NESTED BEAN INC: Massari Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts NEW YORK: Alshami Suit Removed to S.D. New York NFHS NETWORK: Kasper VPPA Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. NIKE RETAIL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Jones Amended to Nov. 8 NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiffs Seek Extension to Amend Complaint ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Hubacek Securities Suit in Delaware OPENAI INC: YouTuber Sues Over Scraping Creators' Transcripts OTTAWA COUNTY: Appeals Ruling in Baker Suit to Mich. Ct. of Appeals PALM PLAZA: Disabled Can't Access Property Properly, Brito Claims PANERA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Chan Suit Modified to Oct. 25 PARTS AUTHORITY: Cranmore Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages PATRIOT (2010) LLC: Class Certification Bids Due March 7, 2025 PHBC MARKETING: Loses Bid to Dismiss Settle Amended Complaint PNC BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Ratulowski Suit POLARIS INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website QATAR AIRWAYS: Lagos Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. RAY PRICE: Zynda Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina RED WHITE & BREWS: Fancher Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages REVIVAL TEA: Knowles Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website RITE AID: Spiker Sues Over Customers' Compromised Private Info ROSEMONT EXPOSITION: Rule Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Wages ROSWELL COUNTRY: Peyton Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Bartenders RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Johnson Wins Bid for Class Certification RYDER INTEGRATED: Court Stays Pending Discovery in Nance Suit SCHNADER HARRISON: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 22 SCHNADER HARRISON: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadlines SCOTT W. EPSTEIN: Caputo Sues to Recover Straight Time Wages SERVICES FOR THE UNDERSERVED: Easy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SHARECARE INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Altaris Affiliate SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Davis Suit SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Canady Consolidated to Data Breach Suit SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Coit Suit Consolidated to Data Breach Case SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Enriquez Consolidated to Data Breach Suit SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Jacobs Consolidated to Data Breach Suit SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: McLean Consolidated to Data Breach Suit SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Reese Suit Consolidated to Data Breach Case SIMPLE SICHUAN: Court Awards $35K Judgment to Fajardo and Morales SNOWFLAKE INC: Schwartz Files Suit in D. Montana SNOWFLAKE INC: Weaver Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngas Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida SPD SWISS: Saedi Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII & PHI SPECIALIZED LOAN: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Otey Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia T-MOBILE USA: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; Barahona Suit Stayed TECH MAHINDRA: Kent Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Washington TICKETMASTER LLC: Faces Howitt Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info TRANS UNION: Bid to Strike Supplemental Exhibit Granted in Part TRANS UNION: Brooks Wins Class Certification Bid TRANS UNION: Saucedo Submits Exhibit to Ram Declaration TRANSUNION RENTAL: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid UNDER ARMOUR: Advertises False Price Discounts, Williams Claims UNITED WATER: Knott Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action UTICA COFFEE: Faces Knowles Suit Over Website's Access Barriers VON MAUR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Alleges WASHINGTON GROUP: Lawrence Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WELLS FARGO: Smith Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Georgia WESTERN CONFERENCE: Parties Ask Court to Modify Case Schedule YAMAHA MOTOR: Faces Murphy Suit Over Website's Access Barriers YODLEE INC: Must File Revised Opposition to Class Certification Bid [*] Court Limits Discovery in TCPA Class Action [*] Impact of Class Suit Litigation Under Illinois' BIPA Discussed ********* 420 REAL ESTATE: Court Requires Carter to File Status Report ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned JEFFREY CARTER, Plaintiff v. WILLARD L. JACKSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01775-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order requiring the Plaintiff to file status report. The Plaintiff initiated this class action on Dec. 27, 2023, against Defendants Willard L. Jackson, Nicole T. Birch, Vicent Petrescu, 420 Real Estate, LLC, Trucrowd Inc., Transatlantic Real Estate, LLC, and Bangi Inc. The Plaintiff has filed proofs of service of two of eight Defendants: Vincent Petrescu and Trucrowd, Inc. Defendant Petrescu has filed an answer to the Plaintiff's complaint. On June 3, 2024, the Plaintiff obtained a clerk's entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) against Defendant Trucrowd, Inc. On May 23, 2024, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to serve by publication without prejudice for failure to show that a cause of action exists against Jackson, Shumake, Birch, 420 Real Estate, LLC., Transatlantic Real Estate, LLC, or BANGI, Inc. ("Unserved Defendants") or that reasonably diligent efforts have been expended to locate and serve each Unserved Defendant. The Court granted Plaintiff a sixty-day extension of time to complete service on the Unserved Defendants. In granting the extension, the Court required that any renewed motion for service by publication be filed within the sixty-day extension of time. Judge Boone notes that no renewed motion for service by publication has been filed and the time by which the Plaintiff was ordered to do so has passed. The Plaintiff has not filed proof of service of any of the six Unserved Defendants. A scheduling conference is currently set for Aug. 13, 2024. Accordingly, the Court orders that within seven (7) days of entry of this order, the Plaintiff will file a status report addressing whether Defendants Willard L. Jackson, Nicole T. Birch, 420 Real Estate, LLC, Transatlantic Real Estate, LLC, Bangi Inc., and Robert S. Shumake have been served or will be dismissed from this action. Failure to comply with this order may result in the issuance of sanctions. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 25, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mry9wyfb from PacerMonitor.com. ADVANCE STORES: Parties Must File Joint Scheduling Report --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG, v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY INCORPORATED, Case No. 0:24-cv-61370-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Dimitrouleas entered an order requiring counsel to meet, file joint scheduling report and joint discovery report: 1. Pretrial discovery in this case shall be conducted in accord with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Southern District of Florida Local Rule 16.1. 2. Within 35 calendar days of the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, unless this action is excluded under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), the parties shall file a Joint Scheduling Report and Joint Proposed Order pursuant to Local Rule 16.1.B.2.1 3. The parties must confer within 15 calendar days after the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, to consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, to make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), and to develop a proposed discovery plan that indicates the parties’ view and proposals concerning the matters listed in Rule 26(f). 4. Counsel for the parties shall hold a scheduling conference either at the same time as the discovery conference described in Rule 26(f) or within ten (10) calendar days thereafter. Advance Stores retails and distributes automotive parts and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V2r3Ff at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCED WINDSHIELD: Fails to Properly Pay Installers, Rossie Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER ROSSIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED WINDSHIELD REPAIR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00635-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La., August 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an installer from approximately November 2022 to July 2024. Advanced Windshield Repair, Inc. is an automobile glass provider located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Ste. B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com ALLIED PROPERTY: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Amended to Sept. 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL and GINA ODDI, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. ALLIED PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., an Iowa company, and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., an Ohio company, Case No. 2:20-cv-09871-JAK-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order setting amended pretrial deadlines: Current New Deadline Deadline Deadline to file Opposition Aug. 12, 2024 Sept. 11, 2024 to Motion for Class Certification Deadline to file Reply in Support Aug. 28, 2024 Oct. 16, 2024 of Motion for Class Certification Hearing on Motion for Class Sept. 9, 2024 Oct. 28, 2024 Certification Last day to participate in a Oct. 18, 2024 Nov. 13, 2024 settlement conference/mediation Last day to file notice of Oct. 18, 2024 Nov. 15, 2024 settlement/joint report re settlement Post Mediation Status Conference Oct. 28, 2024 Nov. 25, 2024 Allied provides property and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E2ZA2N at no extra charge.[CC] ALLURE INTIMATE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allure Intimate Apparel, Case No. 0:24-cv-03119 (D. Minn., Aug. 1, 2024), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.allurefits.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind. The Defendant offers intimate apparel, and accessories for sale including but not limited to, bras, panties, lingerie, sleepwear, slips, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Parties in De Coster Can Provisionally Seal Docs ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order regarding sealing of class certification briefing. Accordingly, in order to ensure that such materials are treated appropriately under the applicable protective order, and to reduce burdens on the Court, the Parties, and non-Parties, pursuant to LCR 7(2)(1) and 10(g), the Parties and their respective counsel stipulate and agree to the following procedure for filing and sealing in connection with the class certification briefing, subject to the Court's approval. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), each Party will provisionally file under seal its class certification briefs (including any opening, response, and reply briefs), expert declarations or reports, exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which that Party relies (collectively, "Class Certification Papers") which contain material designated Confidential or Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only by any Party or Non-Party. Within four weeks of the filing of the Plaintiffs' Reply brief, pursuant to LCR 5(g), the Parties, and any necessary Non-Parties, will meet and confer and, as appropriate, file (1) public versions of their Class Certification Papers, with necessary redactions, and (2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)3. The schedule for filing any such public versions of the Parties' Class Certification Papers and corresponding motion(s) to seal shall be as follows: De Coster Frame-Wilson Brown Reply in support Jan. 24, 2025 May 23, 2025 Sept. 16, 2025 of Motion to Certify class Filing of public Feb. 21, 2025 June 20, 2025 Oct. 14, 2025 versions of Class Certification Papers and Corresponding Motions to Seal The Party or Non-Party seeking to maintain material under seal (or under redaction) shall be the movant for purposes of any such motion(s) to seal associated with the Parties’ class certification briefing. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sGnAdb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com ASH & ERIE INC: Competello Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Competello, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ASH & ERIE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05899 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 2, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website, https://www.ashanderie.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant, is a Delaware foreign corporation that owns and maintains a website, https://www.ashanderie.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th SNYtreet, Suite 2300 New York, New York 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com AUTONATION FORD: Faces Safouri Wage-and-Hour Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- MIKE SAFOURI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOE MACPHERSON FORD dba AUTONATION FORD TUSTIN, a California corporation; AUTONATION, INC., a corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV19533 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the California's Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including misclassification of employees, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide written notice of paid sick leave and supplemental paid sick leave, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to maintain accurate time and payroll records, and failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from in or about December 2012 through November 19, 2023. Joe MacPherson Ford, doing business as Autonation Ford Tustin, is an owner and operator of stores in California. Autonation, Inc. is an owner and operator of stores in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle C. Worrell, Esq. WORRELL LAW FIRM, APC 1717 Old Tustin Avenue, Unit E Santa Ana, CA 92706 Telephone: (657) 232-1450 Facsimile: (657) 232-1430 Email: kcw@worrell-law.com BALDOVIN CONST: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Thurman -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thurman v. Baldovin Construction Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-01179-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. Baldovin Construction is a commercial & residential construction company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OdSpXe at no extra charge.[CC] BELLA ELEVATOR: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Pierce Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pierce v. Bella Elevator, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01214-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's standing order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zoyWp7 at no extra charge.[CC] BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Bid to Dismiss Hernandez Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grants in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned MARILYN HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff v. BLOOMINGDALE'S INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00519-LKG (D. Md.). Plaintiff Marilyn Hernandez was a citizen of the State of Maryland at all times relevant to this dispute. Defendant Bloomingdale's, LLC, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Ohio, with its principal place of business located in Long Island City, New York. Defendant Bloomingdales.com, LLC, is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Ohio, with its principal place of business located in Long Island City, New York. The Plaintiff commenced this putative class action on Feb. 24, 2023. On Nov. 6, 2023, she filed an amended complaint. In this putative class action, Plaintiff Marilyn Hernandez bring claims, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, against Defendants Bloomingdale's, LLC and Bloomingdales.com, LLC, for violations of the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act ("MWESA"), and intrusion upon seclusion, for alleged surreptitious use of JavaScript computer code known as "Session Replay Code" on the Bloomingdales.com website. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to the Bloomingdales.com website and procuring third-party vendors to embed snippets of Session Replay Code on that website, which then deploys on each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic communications with Bloomingdales.com. The Plaintiff asserts these claims in the amended complaint: (1) violation of the MWESA (Count I) and (2) invasion of privacy-intrusion upon seclusion (Count II). As relief, the Plaintiff seeks certain declaratory and injunctive relief and to recover monetary damages, attorney's fees and costs from the Defendants. On March 11, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). On April 1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. On April 15, 2024, the Defendants filed a reply brief. For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court (1) grants-in-part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and (2) dismisses the amended complaint. Judge Griggsby finds that the Plaintiff has not shown that her claims in this matter arise out of the Defendants' activities in Maryland. She also fails to allege facts to show that the Defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in Maryland. The Defendants persuasively argue that the Plaintiff has not made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction to survive their jurisdictional challenge, Judge Griggsby opines. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated July 25, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mpc7upr7 from PacerMonitor.com. BMW OF NORTH: Seeks to Modify Class Certification Briefing Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIS et al v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-19650-MEF-AME (D.N.J.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request that the deadlines for serving the parties' class certification briefing be slightly modified. In accordance with this Court's Order, the Plaintiffs served their opening brief on May 22, 2024. BMW NA is scheduled to serve its brief in opposition on Aug. 5, 2024, pursuant to your Honor's July 18, 2024, Order. However, BMW NA requires a final, one-week extension to serve its brief in opposition, through and until Aug. 12, 2024. The new deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their brief in reply will be October 9, 2024. As previously discussed, the parties anticipate that all class certification briefing will be filed on CM/ECF on Oct. 10, 2024, under the old "Appendix N" format per the Court's schedule. BMW of North America markets and sells motor vehicles. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5pJrqv at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Dalton, Esq. BUCHANAN 550 Broad Street, Suite 810 Newark, NJ 07102-4582 Telephone: (973) 424-5614 Facsimile: (973) 273-9430 E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Faces Securities Class Suit in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2024, that it is currently facing a purported class action in the court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company, Boardwalk GP, LP and Boardwalk GP, LLC, regarding the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to purchase the issued and outstanding common units of the company not already owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates. Plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger initiated this action on May 25, 2018. On June 25, 2018, the plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to the approval of the Trial court. Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed, and related claims against the Defendants would be released by the Plaintiffs, if Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp., the sole member of the general partner of Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise its Purchase Right for a cash purchase price, as determined by the company's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, as amended and gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement. On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase of the company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right. On September 28, 2018, the Trial court denied the approval of the Proposed Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class action complaint was filed in this proceeding, which, among other things, added Loews as a Defendant. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard by the Trial court in July 2019. In October 2019, the Trial court ruled on the motion and granted a partial dismissal, with certain aspects of the case proceeding to trial. A trial was held the week of February 22, 2021, and post-trial oral arguments were held on July 14, 2021. On November 12, 2021, the Trial court issued a ruling on the case. The Trial court held that Boardwalk GP breached the Limited Partnership Agreement and found that Boardwalk GP is liable to the Plaintiffs for approximately $690.0 million in damages, plus pre-judgment interest (approximately $166.0 million), post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees. The Trial court's ruling and damages award was against Boardwalk GP, and not the company or its subsidiaries. On January 3, 2022, the Defendants appealed the trial court's ruling to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On January 17, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal to the Supreme Court contesting the calculation of damages by the Trial court. Oral arguments were held for this case on September 14, 2022 and on December 19, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed the Trial Court's ruling and remanded the case to the Trial Court for further proceedings related to claims not decided by the Trial Court's ruling. Briefing by the parties at the Trial Court on the remanded issues was completed in September 2023. A hearing on the remanded issues was held at the Trial Court in April 2024. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP operate the business through its primary subsidiary Boardwalk Pipelines, LP (Boardwalk Pipelines), and its operating subsidiaries, which consist of integrated pipeline and storage systems for natural gas and natural gas liquids and other hydrocarbons based in Texas. BOAT TOWN INC: McNamara Suit Removed to W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kaden McNamara, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Boat Town, Inc., Clayton Raven, Clay Raven, Case No. D-1-GN-24-003965 was removed from the 126th District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on Aug. 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00869 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Boat Town -- https://boattown.com/ -- is Austin's oldest and finest boat dealership serving the entire Highland Lakes area, Austin, and Central Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. DePonte, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 500 N. Akard, Suite 2500 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 520-2400 Fax: (214) 520-2008 Email: Michael.DePonte@jacksonlewis.com BOB EVANS: Mitchell Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Kitchen Managers ------------------------------------------------------------------- RUFUS MITCHELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOB EVANS RESTAURANTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01840 (S.D. Ill., August 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a kitchen manager from approximately January 2022 to January 2023. Bob Evans Restaurants, LLC is an operator of a chain of restaurants under the name Bob Evans, located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com CAMELOT REALTY: Faces Lagos Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- HERNANDO LAGOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMELOT REALTY GROUP LLC, SHINE SERVICES, LLC, FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL NEW YORK, INC., PETRA SCOTT, RAMESH SAARVA, and PARAAG SAARVA, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05233 (E.D.N.Y., July 26, 2024) is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, seeking damages to redress losses Plaintiff has suffered as a result of Defendants failing to pay him required overtime wages, failing to timely pay him, and retaliating against him for making complaints of unlawful conduct by Defendants. The Plaintiff worked in buildings owned and managed by the Defendants from 2013 until December 29, 2023. He asserts that Defendants did not pay him at a rate of one and a half times his standard pay rate for the hours he worked beyond 40 per month. The Defendants terminated him by email and text message after he complained about only being paid once per month and that he did not receive any pay for any hours in excess of 40. Additionally, the Plaintiff brings this action to challenge Defendants' breach of contract for failing to pay him for services performed, says the suit. Camelot Realty Group LLC is a property management company headquartered in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP 233 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 571-0700 CGB ENTERPRISES: Bid to Stay Proceedings in Hayes Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sue E. Myerscough of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division, denies the motion to stay proceedings in the lawsuit captioned KYLE HAYES, on behalf of Himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. CGB ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A CONSOLIDATED GRAIN AND BARGE CO. and CONSOLIDATED TERMINALS AND LOGISTICS, CO., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03296-SEM-KLM (C.D. Ill.). On Aug. 24, 2023, Plaintiff Kyle Hayes, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a four-Count Class Action Complaint against Defendant CGB Enterprises, Inc. ("CGB") in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Division, Sangamon County, asserting that he used timekeeping technology to clock in and out from work in a manner that violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). On Oct. 11, 2023, Defendant CGB filed a Notice of Removal to this Court. On Dec. 29, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On Jan. 26, 2024, Defendant CGB filed a Motion to Dismiss. On June 20, 2024, the Court denied Defendant CGB's Motion. On July 3, 2024, Defendant CGB filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings, seeking a temporary stay of the instant proceedings in light of Senate Bill (SB) 2979. On July 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his Response. The Court finds that a stay is not warranted. Judge Myerscough opines that the Plaintiff will not experience prejudice or be placed at a tactical disadvantage if discovery is stayed. Additionally, parties have an obligation to preserve evidence material to the litigation. Moreover, despite the Plaintiff's concern that a stay would impede his ability to locate class members and potentially prejudice class members, that concern appears speculative. However, the Court finds that a stay would not simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial and would not reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the Court. In Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., the Illinois Supreme Court held that, with regards to claims under Sections 15(b) and (d) of BIPA, "a claim accrues under the Act with every scan or transmission of biometric identifiers or biometric information without prior informed consent." On June 14, 2024, the Illinois Legislature passed SB 2979 to address the damages issue raised by the Illinois Supreme Court. SB 2979 is awaiting signature by Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker. Defendant CGB argues that SB 2979 clarifies that claims under BIPA Sections 15(b) and (d) "accrue only once, upon the first collection and/or dissemination of a plaintiff's purposed biometric data." Defendant CGB further argues that because: (1) the statute of limitations for BIPA claims is five years; (2) the Plaintiff first scanned his purported biometric data in 2011; and (3) the Plaintiff did not file the instant suit until August 2023; SB 2979 would require the dismissal of the Plaintiff's BIPA Sections 15(b) and (d) claims. However, the Court finds that Defendant CGB's interpretation of SB 2979 is not a correct reading of the proposed bill. SB 2979 makes no mention regarding the accrual of claims. Rather, SB 2979 clarifies that plaintiffs whose biometrics are collected or disseminated by a private entity without consent are entitled to a single monetary recovery, regardless of the number of times the private entity collected or disseminated the biometric data. SB 2979 does not state that BIPA claims only accrue once on the date of the first alleged BIPA violation, as opposed to the final alleged violation. In other words, SB 2979 speaks to the assessment of damages, not to when BIPA claims accrue. Because SB 2979 would not require dismissal of the Plaintiff's BIPA Sections 15(b) and (d) claims, as Defendant CGB purports it does, Judge Myerscough opines that anticipation of SB 2979 being signed into law by Governor Pritzker does not simplify the issues in question, does not streamline the trial, and does not reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the Court. After considering the factors, a stay is not warranted. For these reasons, the Court denies Defendants CGB's Motion to Stay Proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 25, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4r5uzbha from PacerMonitor.com. CLEMENS FOOD: Seaboard Deal in Pork Antitrust Suit Has Prelim. OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota grants preliminary approval of a settlement in the lawsuit styled IN RE: PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD (D. Minn.). The Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("CIIPPs") seek the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement of their claims against Seaboard Foods LLC ("Seaboard Foods"). The current CIIPP named class representative Plaintiffs are: Sandee's Bakery; Francis T. Enterprises d/b/a Erbert & Gerbert's; Joe Lopez, d/b/a Joe's Steak and Leaf; Longhorn's Steakhouse; The Grady Corporation; Mcmjoynt LLC d/b/a The Breakfast Joynt; Edley's Restaurant Group, LLC; Basil Mt. Pleasant, LLC; Basil Charlotte, Inc.; Farah's Courtyard Deli, Inc.; and Tri-Ten LLC. Upon consideration of the filings, record, and applicable legal authority and having reviewed the Motion and proposed settlement, the Court grants the CIIPPs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with Seaboard Foods. The defined terms in this Order will have the same meaning ascribed to them in the settlement agreement between CIIPPs and Seaboard Foods ("Settlement Agreement"). On March 29, 2023, the Court granted class certification, certified CIIPP classes, and appointed Larson King, LLP, and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca as Co-Lead Class Counsel. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are preliminarily approved, including the release contained therein, as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the certified classes as defined in the Settlement Agreement (the "Certified Classes"), subject to further consideration at the Court's Fairness Hearing. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement was negotiated and entered into at arm's length by experienced counsel, raises no obvious reasons to doubt its fairness, and is sufficiently within the range of reasonableness that notice of the Settlement Agreement should be given, pursuant to a plan to be submitted by Co-Lead Class Counsel and approved by the Court at a later date as provided in this Order. The definitions of the Certified Classes in the Settlement Agreement are the same as those certified in the Court's March 29, 2023 Order, except for the parties' agreed revision of the "Damages Class" to add Illinois as a Repealer Jurisdiction (i.e., a state that has "repealed" the Supreme Court's holding in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), and provides standing to indirect purchasers). Because the Court certified almost identical classes before settlement, it can incorporate its findings from the March 29, 2023 Order and need only address the addition of Illinois as a Repealer Jurisdiction. The Court finds that there is a valid basis for adding Illinois as a Repealer Jurisdiction, and notes that the Court has previously approved an indirect purchaser class that included Illinois as a Repealer Jurisdiction. Accordingly, as part of this preliminary approval order, the Court preliminarily certifies, for purposes of this settlement, the "Certified Classes" as defined in the Settlement Agreement. Within 15 days of the date of this Order, Co-Lead Class Counsel for the CIIPPs will move the Court ("Notice Motion") to approve a program to notify members of the Certified Classes of this settlement with Seaboard Foods. Co-Lead Class Counsel will provide notice of the Settlement Agreement and the Fairness Hearing to potential class members affected by and/or entitled to participate in the settlement in compliance with the notice requirements of Rule 23 and due process of law. Such means of providing notice will be addressed in a subsequent Order following submission of the Notice Motion by CIIPPs. The Notice Motion will include a proposed form of, method for, and date of dissemination of notice. If the Settlement Agreement is not granted Final Approval following the Fairness Hearing or is cancelled or terminated pursuant to Paragraph 20 of the Settlement Agreement, then the Settlement Agreement and all proceedings had in connection therewith will be vacated, and will be null and void, except insofar as expressly provided otherwise in the Settlement Agreement, and without prejudice to the status quo and rights of CIIPPs, Seaboard Foods, and the members of the Certified Classes. The parties will also comply with any terms or provisions of the Settlement Agreement applicable to the settlement not becoming final. Judge Tunheim says neither this Order nor the Settlement Agreement will be deemed or construed to be an admission or evidence of a violation of any statute, law, rule, or regulation or of any liability or wrongdoing by Seaboard Foods or of the truth of any of CIIPPs' claims or allegations, nor will it be deemed or construed to be admission or evidence of Seaboard Foods' defenses. The Court approves the establishment of the Settlement Fund described at Paragraph 12 of the Settlement Agreement as a qualified settlement fund ("QSF") pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 468B and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder and retains continuing jurisdiction as to any issue that may arise in connection with the formation and/or administration of the QSF. Co-Lead Class Counsel are, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and subject to any necessary Court approval, authorized to expend funds from the QSF for the payment of the costs of notice, payment of taxes, and settlement administration costs. The litigation against the Released Parties (as defined in the Settlement Agreement with Seaboard Foods) is stayed except to the extent necessary to effectuate the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 25, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mu67b8ck from PacerMonitor.com. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Settlement in Melluci Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2024, that on June 6, 2024, Judge James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of a proposed settlement which will govern administration of payments to eligible members of the plaintiff class with regards to a March 14, 2019 purported securities class action complaint filed in said court captioned "Nicholas Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al." (Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK). It asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about its business, operations and prospects. The complaint asserts a putative class period extending from August 2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys' fees. On October 7, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff's consolidated complaint was filed on December 6, 2019. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated is a commercial-stage pharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery and development of medications to treat severe endocrine, oncology, metabolism and neurology disorders by modulating the effects of the hormone cortisol. COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Parties Must Submit Joint Scheduling Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baldino-Miller v. Courtyard Management Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01613 (E.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order that: -- The parties shall meet and confer regarding these issues in advance of the Scheduling Conference currently set for Sept. 9, 2024. -- The parties shall file an updated Joint Scheduling Report at least one full week prior to the conference. -- Additionally, the Plaintiff shall provide her initial disclosures no later than Aug. 5, 2024. On Aug. 1, 2024, the Court held a status conference. The parties indicated their disagreement as to the manageability of the case. The Defendants identified several disputed issues, including whether Plaintiff was ever employed by Marriott International, Inc. and whether Plaintiff was ever a non-exempt employee. The Court and parties discussed bifurcation of class certification discovery from merits discovery, parallel discovery regarding Plaintiff's individual claims, Defendants' anticipated motion to sever Plaintiff's individual claims from her putative class claims, and a protective order. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Courtyard was founded in 2012. The company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract or fee basis.[CC] CRICKET WIRELESS: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Andrew Wilkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC, Case No. 24-03246-TT was removed from the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 31, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03591 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Other Contract. Cricket Wireless -- http://www.cricketwireless.com/-- is an American wireless service provider, owned by AT&T.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Michelle A. Paninopoulos, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP One Logan Square, Ste. 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 988-2619 Fax: (215) 988-2757 Email: michelle.paninopoulos@faegredrinker.com CVVG MANAGEMENT: Saldana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVVG MANAGEMENT, LLC. The case is styled as Johnny Saldana, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVVG MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. BCV-24-102586 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Aug. 1, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." CVVG MANAGEMENT, LLC is a medical practice company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com DAVIDSBEENHERE.COM: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Windy Lucius, and all others similarly situated v. DAVIDSBEENHERE.COM LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-22864-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2024), is brought against Defendant for offering and maintaining a mobile website (software that is intended to run on mobile devises such as phones or tablet computers) that is not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"). Because Plaintiff's visual disability limits her in the performance of major life activities, including sight, she requires the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, and screen reader software technology for effective communication, including communication in connection with her mobile devises such as phones or tablet computers. The Plaintiff utilizes the Apple Screen Reader VoiceOver software to read computer materials and/or access and comprehend internet mobile website information which is specifically designed for the visually impaired. Due to her disability, Plaintiff cannot use mobile devices such as phones or tablet computers without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. Screen reader software translates the visual internet into an auditory equivalent, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally blind, and substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, seeing, accurately visualizing her world, and adequately traversing obstacles. Davidsbeenhere.com, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company authorized and doing business in the State of Florida, which owns and/or operates stores branded "Davidsbeenhere."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC. 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201, Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com DIOCESE OF CAMDEN: Certain Underwriters Appeals Ruling to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit captioned In re: The Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, Case No. 1-24-cv-04279, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The nature of suit is stated as Bankruptcy - Appeal. The appellate case is captioned In re: The Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, Case No. 24-2301, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 22, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jeff D. Kahane, Esq. Andrew Mina, Esq. Russell W. Roten, Esq. DUANE MORRIS 865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-7431 (213) 689-7400 - and - Michael L. Norton, Esq. Catalina J. Sugayan, Esq. CLYDE & CO US LLP 30 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 635-7000 - and - Sommer L. Ross, Esq. DUANE MORRIS 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 657-4951 Defendants-Appellees THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANT CREDITORS, et al. are represented by: Lynda A. Bennett, Esq. Michael A. Kaplan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Prol, Esq. Colleen M. Restel, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER One Lowenstein Drive Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 597-2500 (973) 597-6310 - and - David M. Banker, Esq. Edward Schnitzer, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON 950 Third Avenue, Suite 2400 New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (332) 258-8400 - and - Michael J. Rossignol, Esq. Joseph L. Schwartz, Esq. RIKER DANZIG One Speedwell Avenue Headquarters Plaza Morristown, NJ 07962 Telephone: (201) 538-0800 - and - John S. Mairo, Esq. Warren J. Martin, Jr., Esq. Rachel A. Parisi, Esq. PORZIO BROMBERG & NEWMAN 100 Southgate Parkway P.O. Box 1997 Morristown, NJ 07962 Telephone: (973) 538-4006 - and - Mark D. Pfeiffer, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY 50 S. 16th Street Two Liberty Place, Suite 3200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 665-3921 - and - Peter C. Hughes, Esq. DILWORTH PAXSON 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 575-7000 - and - Donald F. Campbell, Jr., Esq. GIORDANO HALLERAN & CIESLA 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 300 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 741-3900 - and - Arthur J. Abramowitz, Esq. SHERMAN SILVERSTEIN KOHL ROSE & PODOLSKY 308 Harper Drive Suite 200, Eastgate Corporate Center Moorestown, NJ 08057 Telephone: (856) 662-0800 - and - Lauren Bielskie, Esq. Jeffrey M. Sponder, Esq. OFFICE OF UNITED STATES TRUSTEE 1085 Raymond Boulevard One Newark Center, Suite 2100 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 645-2939 (973) 645-2379 - and - Samantha M. Indelicato, Esq. Tancred V. Schiavoni, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 (212) 326-2267 DITA INC: Visually Impaired Can't Access Online Store, Jones Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DITA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05867 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.dita.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: missing alternative-text (alt-text), hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, 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. Dita, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com DNA DIAGNOSTICS CENTER: McClain Files Suit in S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DNA Diagnostics Center, LLC. The case is styled as Sedena McClain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DNA Diagnostics Center, LLC doing business as: Peekaboo Early Gender DNA Test, Case No. 1:24-cv-00413-MWM (S.D. Ohio, July 31, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. DNA Diagnostics Center, LLC doing business as Peekaboo Early Gender DNA Test -- https://peekaboogendertest.com/ -- is the early gender DNA test that accurately determines fetal sex as early as 6 weeks with over 99% accuracy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher David Wiest, Esq. CHRISTOPHER D. WIEST 50 E. Rivercenter Blvd., Ste. 1280 Covington, KY 41011 Phone: (513) 257-1895 Email: chris@cwiestlaw.com DUANE MORRIS: Garland Sues Over Systematic Misclassification ------------------------------------------------------------ Meagan Garland, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DUANE MORRIS, LLP, a business entity; TAX ACCOUNTING GROUP, a business entity, and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No. 4:24-cv-04639 (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2024), is brought against Defendants to seek redress for the Firm's intentional and systematic misclassification of its non-equity partners. The Firm unlawfully classifies its non-equity partners as "partners" and business owners of the Firm for taxation and employment purposes, when in fact, these non-equity partners are employees who misleadingly bear the title of "partner." The Plaintiff alleges the Firm along with TAG intentionally implemented a misclassification scheme to ensure maximum profitability and reduce business expenses and tax obligations for its equity partners by unlawfully shifting those burdens to its non-equity partners. The Plaintiff further seeks redress and programmatic change on behalf of herself and others similarly situated for the Firm's systematic gender and race-based pay inequity practices, which violate California Equal Pay laws. The Plaintiff seeks redress on behalf of herself and others similarly situated for the Firm's violation of the California Labor Code, namely its failure to indemnify its employees for business expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an employment attorney licensed to practice law in California and New York. She has been practicing law since 2006. Duane Morris is a Delaware corporation, which routinely conducts business, maintains two offices, within this Court's jurisdictional area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bibianne U. Fell, Esq. (SBN 234194) FELL LAW, P.C. Mailing: 10531 4S Commons Dr., Ste 166-610 San Diego, CA 92127 Personal Service: 591 Camino De La Reina #1020 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (858) 201-3960 Facsimile: (858) 201-3966 Email: bibi@fellfirm.com DUPONT DE NEMOURS: Hall Bid for Summary Judgment Granted -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALL, et al., v. DuPont De NeMours, Inc. et al. (E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION), Case No. 2:23-cv-00869-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund Sargus, Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Leach Class Membership. The Clerk is directed to file this Dispositive Motions Order in Hall, Case No. 2:23-cv-869, only. Mr. Hall and his spouse, Mrs. Hall, brought this action on March 3, 2023. They allege that Mr. Hall resided and worked in at least one of the contaminated water districts including the City of Little Hocking, Ohio and Little Hocking Water Association, Ohio ("LHWA") in 1999 and consumed water contaminated with C-8 at greater than .05 ppb for at least a year before Dec. 3, 2004. As a result of his water consumption, the Plaintiffs allege Mr. Hall was diagnosed with testicular cancer on Feb. 10, 2022, and sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The Plaintiffs brought causes of action against DuPont for negligence; concealment, misrepresentation, and fraud; negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; punitive damages; and loss of consortium. Since the complaint was filed, Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) of Plaintiffs' claim for concealment, misrepresentation, and fraud. Because the notice did not dismiss all claims, the Court construed the notice as a joint motion to sever under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, granted the motion, and dismissed the second cause of action without prejudice. DuPont is an American multinational chemical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uab5O2 at no extra charge.[CC] ELIZABETH CABRASER: Court Tosses Larkin Request to Stay Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BILLY F. LARKIN, v. ELIZABETH J. CABRASER, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00190-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order as follows. 1. The Court denies as moot Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, and his request to reopen this action. 2. The Court denies the Plaintiff's request to stay this action and to order the United States Marshal to effect service; and denies the Plaintiff's request that the Court waive the service requirement and electronically issue the summons and complaints to the Defendants. 3. The Court denies the Plaintiff's request to proceed as a class action. 4. The Court grants the Plaintiff's request to extend the time to effect service. The Plaintiff must effect service by Sept. 30, 2024. Failure to effect service by Sept. 30, 2024, will result in dismissal of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) without further notice to the Plaintiff unless he can demonstrate good cause for the failure to serve. The Plaintiff has not explained why a stay is needed. To the extent that the Plaintiff is seeking to stay this action until service is effected, this request is denied. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to timely prosecute this action, including effecting service. Moreover, the Court has granted Plaintiff an extension of time to effect service. The Plaintiff filed this action on Jan. 10, 2024. That same day, the Court sent the Plaintiff a notice that the action was deficient because he had not paid the filing fee or filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court informed the Plaintiff that he should correct this deficiency by Feb. 7, 2024, or the action would be dismissed. The Court sent the Plaintiff a blank in forma pauperis application form. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=de5kL2 at no extra charge.[CC] ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Norman Files Another 4th Cir. Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ BRENDA L. NORMAN has filed another appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Brenda Norman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Northern Virginia, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01518-AJT-WBP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Brenda Norman, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former case manager employees of the Defendants, filed a suit on Sept. 26, 2023, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act (VOWA). On Mar. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class. Judge Anthony J. Trenga granted the motion on July 12, 2024, insofar as it requests the conditional certification of a collective of similarly situated employees from within the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court held that the Plaintiff has met her burden at this stage of the collective certification analysis for the Court to grant the Motion in part and order that notice be issued. The Plaintiff previously filed an appeal dated July 23, 2024, captioned Brenda Norman v. Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital, Case No. 24-205, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The current appellate case is captioned Brenda Norman v. Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital, Case No. 24-1690, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 25, 2024. An order was entered on July 25, 2024, consolidating appellate Case Nos. 24-1690 and 24-205.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner BRENDA L. NORMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al. is represented by: Zev H. Antell, Esq. Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street Richmond, VA 23227 - and – Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Richard J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE & HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive Dallas, TX 75254 Defendants-Respondents ENCOMPASS HEALTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA, LLC, et al., are represented by: Amy M. Pocklington, Esq. Scott Andrew Siegner, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC 901 East Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 663-2330 - and – Steven Frederick Pockrass, Esq. Kenneth B. Siepman, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC 300 North Meridian Indianapolis, IN 46204 ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Phillips Suit Seeks Proper OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------- TEDDY PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC., and ENERGIZER AUTO MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01026 (E.d. Mo., July 26, 2024) challenges Defendants' policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio overtime compensation statute and Ohio semi-monthly payment of wages statute Ohio Revised Code. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay the required overtime compensation to Named Plaintiff and the Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs when they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The complaint further asserts that Named Plaintiff and the Ohio Class members' unpaid wages have remained unpaid for more than 30 days beyond their regularly scheduled payday, and therefore also have not been paid on a semi-monthly basis. Plaintiff Phillips is a resident of Ohio who was jointly employed by Defendant as an hourly electrician from approximately August 2023 to April 2024. Energizer Holdings, Inc. is an American manufacturer of batteries headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2944 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com EQUIFAX: Holloway Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus in FCRA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELISHA N. HOLLOWAY filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the lawsuit entitled Elisha N. Holloway, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Equifax, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01038, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On March 25, 2025, Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton recommended that: (1) Defendant Equifax's Motion to Join Trans Union and Experian's Joint Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED; (2) Defendants Trans Union and Experian's Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be GRANTED; (3) Defendant NCS's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) be GRANTED; (4) all claims against Defendants be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and (5) Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Protective Order be DENIED. On May 29, 2024, Judge Mark Pittman fully adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. Accordingly, the Court entered final judgment that the civil action be DISMISSED with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Elisha N. Holloway v. Equifax, et al., Case No. 23-10660, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on July 22, 2024. [BN] ERIC MICHAEL GARCETTI: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Bid Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEOPLE OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES WHO ARE UN-HOUSED V. ERIC MICHAEL GARCETTI, ET AL., Case No. 2:21-cv-06003-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: -- The Court certifies the Class to pursue class claims under Rule 23(b)(2), appoints Plaintiffs Jacobs and Serin as Class Representatives for the Proposed Class and appoints Yagman and Reichmann LLP as Class Counsel for the Proposed Class. The Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for certification as a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3). The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties. The Plaintiffs asks the Court to certify the following Class: "All un-housed persons who reside in the City of Los Angeles and whose property and/or belongings have been subjected to and confiscated pursuant to City of Los Angeles ordinances §§ 56.11 and/or 56.12, and who have suffered the same injuries of having had their property and/or belongings taken, and who have been required to travel long distances across Los Angeles to retrieve their seized belongings, and who (A) have traveled long distances and retrieved their belongings, or (B) have not been able to travel those long distances and who thereby have lost their belongings.” Mot. at 15. 1 Plaintiffs seek to appoint Plaintiffs C. Finley, W. Lockett, D. Jacobs, and E. Serin as the named plaintiffs challenging the ordinances. Mot. at 6. As explained below, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that certification of the Class is proper, although the Court makes some modifications to Plaintiffs’ request. The Court has discussed the facts at length in its Prior Order and adopts those facts here. In brief, Plaintiffs are unhoused individuals challenging two Los Angeles City ordinances: section 56.11, which governs the storage of items in public, and section56.12, which governs the placement of items that obstruct the public-right-of-way. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lUEP5I at no extra charge.[CC] EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Batts Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ---------------------------------------------------------- Charlton Batts and Xylia Sparks-Davis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Case No. 2:24-cv-02543-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 1, 2024), is brought as a result of the Data Breach the ramifications of Defendant's failure to keep Patients' Personal Identifying Information ("PII") secure. The Defendant's customers, like Plaintiff and Class members, provided certain Personal Identifying Information ("PII") to Defendant, which is necessary to obtain Defendant's services. According to Defendant's own website, a cyber security incident occurred in late May of 2024 which compromised PII including but not limited to social security numbers, bank account numbers, and contact information. The Defendant's website further states that the breach affected both "personal banking customers, as well as customers of our Open Banking partners." The Defendant did not state why they were unable to prevent the Data Breach or which security feature(s) failed. The Defendant did not state why it was unable to detect the Data Breach when it began in February 2024. The Defendant failed to prevent the Data Breach because they did not adhere to commonly accepted security standards and failed to detect that their databases were subject to a security breach. This Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate, reasonable, and commonly accepted cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect PII and failed to detect that their databases were subject to a security breach. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard PII; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; failing to monitor and timely detect the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff are customers of Landa App whose banking services are "provided directly by Evolve Bank & Trust." Evolve Bank & Trust is a bank and trust formed under Arkansas law with a principal place of business located in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Joel R. Rhine, Esq. John A Bruno, Esq. Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Phone: (910) 772-9960 Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com jab@rhinelawfirm.com ras@rhinelawfirm.com EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: St-Louis Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evolve Bank & Trust. The case is styled as Carmelot St-Louis, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Case No. 4:24-cv-00653-BSM (E.D. Ark., July 31, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Evolve Bank & Trust -- https://www.getevolved.com/ -- is a best-in-class technology-focused financial services organization and Banking-as-a-Service ("BaaS") provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 554-2377 Fax: (888) 276-3455 Email: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com - and - Martha Tucker Ayres, Esq. TABLE LAW PLLC 10201 West Markham, Suite 311 Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: (501) 491-0300 Email: martha@tablelaw.com FCA US: Bid for Class Certification in Pistorio Reset to August 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD PISTORIO, et al., v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-11838-SFC-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Sean Cox entered an order resetting pretrial deadlines as follows: Event Proposed Deadline Deadline for Motion for Class Certification Aug. 22, 2024 Response in opposition to Motion for Class Oct. 17, 2024 Certification and Motions Challenging Experts Related to Class Certification Reply in support of Motion for Class Dec. 12, 2024 Certification and Responses in opposition to Motions Challenging Experts Related to Class Certification Replies in support of Motions Challenging Jan. 9, 2025 Experts Related to Class Certification Preliminary Witness Lists Due Jan. 23, 2025 Fact Discovery Cutoff Jan. 30, 2025 Status Conference re Facilitation Feb. 11, 2025 Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures March 7, 2025 Defendant's Expert Disclosures April 4, 2025 Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Disclosures April 25, 2025 Deadline for Motions in limine June 18, 2025 Final Pretrial Order July 2, 2025 FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eJjkzN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Jr., Esq. Mitchell J. Kendrick, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com mjk@millerlawpc.com - and - Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: ldeutch@bm.net josterwise@bm.ne - and - Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Laura Goolsby, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com vh@haffnerlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq. Scott H. Morgan, Esq. Fred Fresard, Esq. Ian Edwards, Esq. Ellisse Thompson, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Ste. 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 888.2970 E-mail: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com tom.azar@kleinthomaslaw.com scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com fred.fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com ian.edwards@kleinthomaslaw.com ellisse.thompson@kleinthomaslaw.com FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: Class Settlement in Berry Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wendy Berry, Lorri Hulings, and Kathleen Sammons, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the FirstGroup America, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, v. FirstGroup America, Inc., FirstGroup America, Inc. Employee Benefits Committee, and Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00326-KLL (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Karen Litkovitz entered an order preliminarily approving amended class action settlement, approving procedure and form of notice, and scheduling final approval hearing: The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), which is consistent with the Class previously certified by the Court: "All participants and beneficiaries of the FirstGroup America, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan at any time on or after Oct. 1, 2013 through the date of preliminary approval, who had any portion of their account invested in the Aon Hewitt Funds, excluding Defendants, any of their directors, and current or former members of the Employee Benefits Committee or Employee Retirement Benefits Committee who served on such committee since Oct. 1, 2013." Consistent with the Court's prior Order Granting Class Certification, Named Plaintiffs Wendy Berry, Lorri Hulings, and Kathleen Sammons are appointed as the Class Representatives, and Nichols Kaster, PLLP and Freking Myers & Reul LLC are appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 3. The Court approves the proposed Notices of Settlement and the method of giving direct notice to Settlement Class Members by U.S. mail. FirstGroup provides transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EVIWJr at no extra charge.[CC] FLYING WINGS: Class Certification & Decertification Bid Due Nov. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAYLA PENDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLYING S. WINGS, d/b/a Buffalo Wild Wings, Case No. 2:21-cv-04292-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly Jolson entered an order granting in part and denying in part the parties' requested case schedule. -- Fact Discovery Oct. 18, 2024 -- Dispositive Motions Nov. 18, 2024 -- Class Certification and/or Nov. 18, 2024 Decertification: -- Primary Expert Reports: Jan. 6, 2025 -- Rebuttal Expert Reports: Feb. 10, 2025 -- Expert Discovery: Apr. 11, 2025 Buffalo Wild Wings is an American casual dining restaurant and sports bar franchise. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BxaK5N at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Dolan --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES DOLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00512-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Payne entered an order amending the Scheduling Order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff shall serve his First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") by Sept. 5, 2024; 2. Ford shall file its (i) answer to the FAC, and (ii) motion to dismiss the FAC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 by Oct. 3,2024; 3. Plaintiff shall serve his expert disclosures and opening expert reports by Oct. 18, 2024; 4. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to Ford's motion to dismiss by Oct. 24,2024; 5. Ford shall file its reply in further support of its motion to dismiss by Nov. 7, 2024; 6. Ford shall serve its expert disclosures and opening expert reports by Nov. 15, 2024; 7. The parties shall serve their rebuttal expert disclosures and rebuttal expert reports by Dec. 12, 2024; 8. The parties shall file their motions pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702, if any, by Jan. 16, 2025; and 9. The parties shall file their oppositions to any motions pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702 by Feb. 6, 2025; Ford Motor sells automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford brand, and luxury cars under its Lincoln brand. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G8FzYR at no extra charge.[CC] FQSR LLC: Moore Suit Removed to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------- The case styled as Darinique Moore, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. FQSR, LLC D/B/A KBP FOODS, Case No. 810447/2024E as removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 31, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-05835. In her Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff asserts (among others) claims against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). In addition to his FLSA claim, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts state law claims under New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and New York City Administrative Code ("NYC Admin. Code").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amanda M. Blair, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 7 Times Square, Suite 4300 New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 899-9989 Email: ablair@fisherphillips.com - and - J. Randall Coffey, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4622 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 910 Kansas City, Mo 64112 Phone: (816) 460-1232 Email: rcoffey@fisherphillips.com - and - Mitch Spencer, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4622 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 910 Kansas City, Mo 64112 Phone: (816) 460-0205 Email: mspencer@fisherphillips.com FRANK NANI: Bonilla Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jenny Coronel Bonilla, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Frank Nani, and Infinity Painting Co., Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-05854 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, 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 State Labor Law ("NYLL") and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"). The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for those hours. The Defendants never granted Plaintiff with meal breaks or rest periods of any length. The Plaintiff was not required to keep track of Plaintiff's time, nor to Plaintiff's knowledge, did the Defendants utilize any time tracking device, such as sign in sheets or punch cards, that accurately reflected Plaintiff's actual hours worked. No notification, either in the form of posted notices, or other means, was ever given to Plaintiff regarding wages are required under the FLSA or NYLL. the Defendants did not provide Plaintiff a statement of wages, as required by NYLL. 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. Moreover, Defendant's breach of these obligations injured Plaintiff by denying Plaintiff the right to know the conditions of their compensation, resulting in the underpayment of wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff employed as a non-managerial employee at Infinity Painting from July 18, 2020 to, through and including, March 28, 2024. The Defendants own, operate and/or control the business located in Staten Island, New York.[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 GEMINI MOTORS NJ: Rubenacker Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Matthew Rubenacker, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. GEMINI MOTORS NJ, LLC, d/b/a BUICK GMC OF MAHWAH; and BRIAN DENNIS, JOHN DOES 1-10, UNKNOWN MANAGEMENT OR OWNERSHIP, Case No. BER-L-2841-24 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey Law Division (Bergen County), to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Aug. 1, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08231. The Plaintiff seeks judgment for declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages as a result of allegedly unlawful conduct by Defendants in the course of sale to him of the Yukon. In particular, Plaintiff contends inter alia that Defendants are engaged in interstate commerce and use "standard Retail Purchase Orders" in the course of selling motor vehicles to members of the public.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: William H. Grae, Esq. GALLO VITUCCI KLAR, LLP Three University Plaza Dr, Ste 402 Hackensack, NJ 07601 NJ Office Phone: (201) 343-1166 Phone: (212) 683-7100, ext 115/ Direct: (201) 312-632 Email: Wgrae@GVLaw.com GIANNELLA'S MODERN: Parties Must Submit Amended Scheduling Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAVIA ALARCON v. GIANNELLA'S MODERN BAKERY LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00447 (D.N.J., Filed Jan. 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Evelyn Padin entered an order that the parties shall submit a joint proposed Amended Scheduling Order for conducting any pre-class certification discovery and continue to engage in settlement discussions on or before Aug. 9, 2024. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Giannella provides freshly-baked goods.[CC] GOODYEAR TIRE: Edwards Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Diondre Edwards, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, a corporation; JUST TIRES, an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV16291 was removed from the 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 Aug. 1, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06534-DSF-AJR. The Complaint asserts the following eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alecia Whitaker Winfield, Esq. Krystal Saleh, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Fax: 800.715.1330 Email: awinfield@littler.com ksaleh@littler.com GOOGLE LLC: Uses YouTube Videos Without Consent, Millette Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID MILLETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, YOUTUBE INC., and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-04708 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment or restitution and unfair competition. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of transcribing and using YouTube users' uploaded videos as training material for Gemini, is an artificial intelligence (AI) software product created, maintained, and sold by Google. The Plaintiff and Class members did not consent to the Defendants' use of their videos as training material. By collecting and using this data without consent, the Defendants have profited significantly from the use of the Plaintiff's and Class members' videos. Google, LLC is an American multinational corporation and technology company based in Mountain View, California. YouTube Inc. is a video sharing company with its headquarters in San Bruno, California. Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational technology conglomerate holding company headquartered in Mountain View, California. [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 - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, 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: jmarchese@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com GRACO CHILDREN'S: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Carder Due Dec. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIE CARDER et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00137-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Opening Expert Reports [issues on which Aug. 16, 2024 party bears burden of proof] Responsive Expert Reports [issues on which Oct. 1, 2024 party does not bear burden of proof] Close of Expert Discovery Oct. 31, 2024 Motions for Class Certification, Motions Dec. 3, 2024 for Summary Judgment, and Daubert Motions Opening Briefs Class Certification, Summary Judgment, Jan. 2, 2025 and Daubert Motions Responsive Briefs Class Certification, Summary Judgment, Jan. 16, 2025 and Daubert Motions Reply Briefs Graco Children's manufactures and sells juvenile products for babies. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=penDAK at no extra charge.[CC] HCI LLC: Yaunney Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUG YAUNEY, individually on behalf of himself and other similarly situated. v. HCI, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-01769-WLH-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for class certification and default judgment against the Defendant , on Sept. 20, 2024. The Plaintiff moves this Court to certify a class as defined as: "All employees of HCI, LLC whose employment was terminated or temporarily suspended within 30 days of Aug. 9, 2022." In addition, the Plaintiff seeks to be appointed as class representative and for his counsel to be appointed as class counsel. After the court grants class certification, the Plaintiff seeks default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). The Plaintiff seeks $5,329,993.71 in class damages and, pursuant to Local Rule 55-3, an attorney's fee award for $112,199.87, for a total of $5,442,193.58 in damages. HCI provides engineering, maintenance, construction, installation, repair, and removal services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9X5ODR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. Michael C. Iadevaia, 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 - Eve H. Cervantez, Esq. Danielle E. Leonard, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 E-mail: ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com dleonard@alshulerberzon.com - and - Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Dalia R. Khalili, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com dkhalili@maternlawgroup.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 - and - Samuel Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 E-mail: Sam@turkestrauss.com Raina@turkestrauss.com HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT: Scott Sues Over Major Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Darryl Scott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and ASRC FEDERAL DATA SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-04658 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2024), is brought involving a major data breach involving extremely private personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") for hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries. The Defendants are private contractors who failed in their duties not only to the Government and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS"), but also to the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries who entrusted them with keeping their data secure. As a result, these Medicare recipients, including Plaintiff, have been directly harmed. On October 8, 2022, HMS was subject to a ransomware attack on its corporate network. Although HMS provided some notice of the data breach to CMS on October 9, 2022, no notice was given to impacted Medicare Beneficiaries until far later, with the notices starting to be distributed only as late as December 14, 2022, more than 2 months later, by CMS. Initial reports indicated the ransomware attack impacted more than 500,000 individuals. However, subsequent statements issued by CMS indicated that approximately 254,000 patients' information was compromised. As will be discussed in detail later, the compromised information included extremely sensitive information which criminals could use, and did use in the case of Plaintiff Scott, to commit fraud and identity theft crimes. Members of the plaintiff class suffered harm in the loss of their private medical and personal information and the extraordinary risk of sale of this data to criminals over the dark web. Indeed, after the data breach, Plaintiff Scott has been the victim of numerous and ongoing attempts at identity theft and fraud using the personal information lost in the breach. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class, alleges claims of Negligence and Negligence Per Se, Breach of Implied Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Invasion of Privacy. Plaintiff also alleges claims on behalf of a California subsclass under California law for violation of California's Consumer Privacy Act, violation of California's Customer Records Act, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Medicare beneficiary and in connection with obtaining Medicare benefits, he entrusted Defendants with sensitive PII and PHI. Healthcare Management Solutions, LLC is a subcontractor for ASRC is the government services subsidiary of the Artic Slope Regional Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Daniel L.M. Pulgram, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law dpulgram@sjk.law HEALTHEQUITY INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Smith Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHEQUITY INC., FURTHER OPERATIONS, LLC, and WAGEWORKS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00558 (D. Utah, August 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored on their network systems following a data breach on March 25, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. HealthEquity Inc., is an American financial technology and business services company with its principal place of business in Draper, Utah. WageWorks, Inc., is a provider of tax-advantaged programs for consumer-directed benefits (CDBs), with its principal place of business in Draper, Utah. Further Operations LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Draper, Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. Anikka T. Hoidal, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 456-7655 Email: jhull@mohtrial.com ahoidal@mohtrial.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com HEALTHEQUITY INC: Jesky Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ RICHARD JESKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHEQUITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00552-JNP (D. Utah, August 1, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract, third-party beneficiary, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored on its network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. HealthEquity, Inc. is a healthcare business services company headquartered in Draper, Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 456-7655 Email: jhull@mohtrial.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com HEALTHY CHOICE: Faces Ortega Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- HILARIO ROJAS ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHY CHOICE MARKETS IV, LLC and GREEN’S NATURAL FOODS, INC. and SHINE PAUL and JEFFREY HOLMAN, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-05682 (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to pay wages on a weekly basis, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Ortega was employed by the Defendants from July 1993 until January 5, 2024. He worked in the produce, dairy and frozen food departments while performing duties such as stock ordering, stocking, cleaning, organizing and depositing the sales. Healthy Choice Markets IV, LLC is a foreign limited liability company organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 HERTZ LOCAL: Hussain Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Azmat Hussain, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. HERTZ LOCAL EDITION CORP., a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 0:24-cv-61407-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 2, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (hereinafter "FLSA"), to recover unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid wages owed. For the duration of Plaintiff's employment prior to this filing Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, worked more than 40 hours per week during his employment without being paid the federally mandated wage for overtime. Specifically, Defendant's pay policies with respect to its assistant managers violates the FLSA because Defendant automatically deducts 30 minutes per day from its assistant managers for a meal break that they are not always able to take, resulting in assistant managers not being paid for all hours worked, some overtime hours and some straight-time hours. The Defendant pays all of their assistant managers in the same fashion. There are at hundreds of other current and former assistant managers in Florida who were subject to the same illegal pay policies and it is estimated that the number of assistant managers nationwide is at least 500 or more. The Defendant's time keeping and pay practices do not comply with the FLSA because its assistant managers are not credited for all hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff employed as an hourly wage assistant manager for Defendant in Broward County, Florida, until his separation from employment on or about June 21, 2024. HERTZ is a Delaware corporation doing business throughout South Florida, and is an enterprise engaged in an industry affecting commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Phone: (954) 617-6017 Facsimile: (954) 617-6018 Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com HIGH TIMES: Doniuses Sue Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------- Debra Borchardt, writing for Green Market Report, reports that High Times certainly hasn't had an easy time of it lately, so it's probably no surprise that disgruntled investors of High Times have now lined up to air their grievances. The cohort, led by Mark C. Donius and Jill L. Donius, filed a class action lawsuit against High Times Holding Corp. at the end of June in the District of Delaware. According to the court complaint, the Doniuses attempted to invest $5,500 in 2021 by sending a check to Prime Trust, the company that was supposedly the escrow agent for the stock. The couple said they received confirmation of the investment, and the check was cashed. The shares were supposed to go from Prime Trust to Equiniti Trust Company, which was supposed to set up and manage the investors' account. What followed, however, was radio silence. A year and a half after investing, the Doniuses spoke to a High Times investor representative, who told them, "We are presently updating our transfer agent's list of registered investors and all investors' shares will be included when the update is complete." The Doniuses then received an email in March 2023 telling them that their investment had been canceled and their money would be refunded. Requests for information on why the purchase was canceled and when the refund would be received were ignored. High Times' then-Chief Financial Officer Christopher Chabot placed the blame on Prime Trust, telling the couple, "I know they are working diligently with the company on securing the information in regards to the refunds. These are not funds that we have any control over and it was sitting in escrow with Prime Trust, so our team is working with them to get the updates and information." The lawsuit, however, blames High Times for not giving proper instructions to Prime Trust. Prime Trust A key problem, according to the investor's complaint, is that Prime Trust was not a traditional choice for an escrow agent. While it was a licensed trust company, its "primary focus was that of being a custodian for digital assets, or cryptocurrency." On June 21, 2023, the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry Financial Institutions Division sent Prime Trust a cease-and-desist order, in which the FID alleged that Prime Trust "materially and willfully breached its fiduciary duties to its customers by failing to safeguard assets under its custody and is unable to meet all customer disbursement requests." Prime Trust filed for bankruptcy shortly after the desist order was issued. According to the lawsuit, Prime Trust state in its bankruptcy documents, "There is no indication or accounting of any investor funds from the High Times offering held in escrow." V Stock The lawsuit also referenced another investor who contacted former CEO and Chairman Adam Levin after buying 200 shares for $2,200 in May 2020. He was told his shares would be processed by a company called V Stock Transfer. After years attempting to reach someone at the company, the investor still has no information regarding his investment from either High Times or V Stock and accuses the company of acting in bad faith. Green Market Report reached out to V Stock Transfer to verify if the company had any arrangement with High Times, but has not received an answer as of yet. Investors want relief The lawsuit claims that there are at least 40 people in the class action, but the true number would be determined through the company's records. They are asking for monetary relief. Attorneys for the lawsuit, Nicholas A. Migliaccio and Jason S. Rathod, can be reached at nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com and jrathod@classlawdc.com. Get in line The investors may have a hard time collecting any money from High Times. The company has been in receivership and is no longer publishing any news. The High Times Cannabis Cup seems to be operating still, with a Hemp Cup currently in the judging phase and a Southern California event set to announce winners on Aug. 11. It isn't clear, though, who is running the event. No one answered at the phone number listed on the website when Green Market Report attempted to call. High Times‘ receivership case also has stalled. The company's main lender, ExWorks, hired Stephen Kunkle as its receiver to try to get back some of the millions it lent the publisher. Kunkle, in turn, hired Kevin Singer to determine all the assets of High Times. However after just a couple months of work, during which Singer noted the company's books were a mess, his contract was terminated. Kunkle has not updated the court docket since June. In September 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission settled a complaint against High Times and Chairman Adam Levin for hiring a stock promoter without informing investors, selling High Times stock when it was no longer eligible to be sold, and falsely representing the share price to investors. The SEC fined the company $558,071. [GN] HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05840 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.husqvarna.com/us/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS, INC., operates the Husqvarna online retail store, as well as the Husqvarna interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal IICOMBINED USA: Jones Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IICOMBINED U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05869 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.gentlemonster.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: missing alternative-text (alt-text), hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, 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. IICombined U.S.A., Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com INDIVIOR PLC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Indivior PLC ("Indivior," or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INDV). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that 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; and (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. If you bought shares of Indivior between February 22, 2024 and July 8, 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/indivior/to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is October 1, 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] INMAR BRAND: Holmes Bid to Compel Class Discovery Denied -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENT D. HOLMES, v. INMAR BRAND SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02093-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Eric Long entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery. -- Discovery remains closed and this case remains set for trial on Nov. 19, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. Because Plaintiff failed to meet and confer and because the requests were untimely, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel responses to his Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Requests for Production is denied. The Plaintiff's claims arise out of a rebate program administered by the Defendant on behalf of Deutsch, a marketer and distributor of retail wines and alcohol. The rebate program was designed to entice consumers to purchase products by offering consumers a cash rebate. Plaintiff submitted a $9 rebate form, which listed his date of birth as "9/12/15." The Defendant sent the Plaintiff an email notifying him that his rebate form was invalid as his birth date indicated he was not 21 years of age. The parties agree that the Plaintiff was 21 years of age at the time of purchase and mistakenly included the wrong birth date. The parties exchanged communications, but the Plaintiff never received his $9 rebate. The Plaintiff served his Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Requests for Production on April 2, 2024. The Defendant objected, noting that the Plaintiff had exceeded the number of allowable interrogatories, along with other more specific objections. Defendant notes that it informed the Plaintiff of its objection regarding the number of interrogatories back in October 2023, but that the Plaintiff declined to seek court leave to exceed the allowed number. Inmar Brand develops enterprise software. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=shtHWq at no extra charge.[CC] INTER-NOVA CONTRACTING: Faces Moran Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ VALENTIN NAVARRO MORAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTER-NOVA CONTRACTING CORP. (D/B/A INTER NOVA CONTRACTING CORP.), INTER CONNECTION ELECTRIC, INC. (D/B/A INTER CONNECTION ELECTRIC), GRANITE 1415, LLC (D/B/A GRANITE 1415, LLC), WALKER 5, LLC (D/B/A WALKER 5 , LLC), WALKER 89, LLC (D/B/A WALKER 89, LLC), WALKER 9, LLC (D/B/A WALKER 9, LLC), and JEFF SKOWRONSKI, ROBERT SKOWRONSKI, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05217 (E.D.N.Y., July 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for violations of the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay on a timely basis, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure to furnish accurate wage statement. Plaintiff Navarro was employed by Defendants as a foreman, supervisor, construction worker, and electrical worker from approximately August 2019 until July 2021, for approximately 2 weeks in March 2022, and from approximately July 2022 until June 30, 2023. Inter-Nova Contracting Corp. operates construction and electrical companies located in Staten Island, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 IPLEX PIPELINES: Faces Leaky Pipes Class Suit in Australian Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fletcher Building says class action proceedings have been filed in the Federal Court of Australia over leaky pipes manufactured by its subsidiary, Iplex Pipelines Australia. Fletcher said it will make no further comment on the action taken by law firm Baker McKenzie on behalf of people who bought the polybutylene pipes, which later developed leaks. Fletcher previously stated the problem with leaky pipes installed in Perth, Australia was a result of installation errors and not a manufacturing problem. Iplex intended to defend the proceedings. [GN] JERICO PICTURES: Cotton Sues Over Major Cyberattack --------------------------------------------------- Barry Cotton, Gary Lake, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JERICO PICTURES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC DATA, Case No. 0:24-cv-61396-MD (S.D. Fla., Aug. 2, 2024), is brought as a data breach class action on behalf of individuals whose personally identifying information ("PII) was stolen by cybercriminals as part of a major cyber-attack on Defendant's systems. It was reported that on or about April 8, 2024, there was unauthorized access to Plaintiffs' and many other individuals' PII and that the information was put up for sale on the dark web (the "Data Breach"). Information compromised in the breach included full names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security number (SSN), family history, and other sensitive and private data. By taking possession and control of sensitive information such as PII, Defendant assumed a duty to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' PII from unauthorized disclosure. The Defendant also has a duty to adequately safeguard individuals' sensitive and private information under industry standards and duties imposed by statutes, including Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), and other relevant laws and regulations. The Defendant breached its duties by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect individuals' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. On June 1, 2024, it was reported by VX-Underground that Defendant's database of 2.9 billion records containing individuals' personal information, including their social security numbers, was posted online for sale for $3.5 million by the cybercriminal group known as "USDoD, who had improperly accessed the data on Defendant's network back in April 2024." The report noted that VX-Underground was provided access to the database and it was able to confirm the validity of the data. The Defendant has not publicly addressed the Data Breach, nor provided any notice to affected individuals. It is presently unknown if an official investigation was ever opened by Defendant into the event. However, on July 29, 2024, Plaintiffs and Class members received notice that their personal data, including their PII and social security numbers, was compromised in the Data Breach and found on the dark web. Plaintiffs and Class members received these notices from various credit and identity protection monitoring services. Defendant has offered no assurance that the sensitive and private information that was accessed in the Data Breach has been recovered or destroyed The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was stolen in the Data Breach. Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy, and seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have received notice from a credit monitoring company that their PII was found on the dark web as a result of the Data Breach. The Defendant is a public records data provider specializing in background checks and fraud prevention.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Esq. Ross Berlin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 223-5402 Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com Ross.berlin@forthepeople.com - and - Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Beena M. McDonald, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. Marissa N. Pembroke, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Centre 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Email: steveschwartz@chimicles.com bmm@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com mnp@chimicles.com JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Hofmann Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER HOFMANN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JERICO PICTURES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC DATA, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-61383 (S.D. Fla., August 1, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored on its network systems following a data breach that occurred prior to April 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Jerico Pictures Inc., doing business as National Public Data, is a background check company with its headquarters in Coral Springs, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Email: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com - and - Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 335-2001 Facsimile: (310) 364-5201 Email: jason@wukolaw.com JSW STEEL: Davison Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Glen Davison, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JSW STEEL (USA), INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-02873 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 2, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Defendant failed to fully and properly pay the Plaintiff for all of his hours worked because during the Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant did not include production bonuses, employee referral bonuses, and profit share bonuses in his regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime in violation of the FLSA. The Defendant applied the aforementioned pay practices and/or policies to other similarly situated employees. These similarly situated employees worked 40 or more hours in given workweeks, and these pay practices and/or policies resulted in these similarly situated employees not being paid all their overtime wages earned in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant beginning in 2017 and until May 8, 2023. JSW STEEL (USA), INC. operates an enterprise in Baytown, Texas, that produces carbon steel plates, DSAW pipes, and hot-rolled coil bands for interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. ROSS SCALISE BEELER AND PILLISCHER 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com LAND ROVER: Loses Summary Judgment Bid w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DiBartolomeo v. Land Rover South Dade, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-20842 (S.D. Fla., Filed March 04, 2024), the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order denying without prejudice the Defendant's motion for summary judgment (MSJ). In its MSJ, the Defendant advances arguments about class certification. But the Plaintiff's deadline "to file any motions for class certification" isn't until Sept. 3, 2024. Accordingly, the Defendant may refile its MSJ after (1) the parties have fully briefed the class-certification issue, and (2) we've adjudicated it. Because this process will likely run up against the current Sept. 11, 2024, deadline to file motions for summary judgment that deadline (and the deadlines that follow) are stayed. Once we've adjudicated the class- certification motion, we will issue an amended scheduling order. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Land Rover new and used automobiles.[CC] LANOCORP USA: Cosmetics Do Not Contain "Collagen," Kouyate Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MOUSSA KOUYATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANOCORP USA INC. D/B/A BY NATURE SKINCARE, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05872 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of State Consumer Protection Statues and New York's General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its "Collagen" By Nature cosmetics. The Defendant markets its products that they contain collagen. Unbeknownst to consumers, however, the products do not contain collagen at all. Instead, the products use a fake imitation of collagen derived from a synthetic extract of the bark and stems of the Acacia seyal tree. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth, they would not have purchased or paid premium for the products, says the suit. Lanocorp USA, Inc., doing business as By Nature Skincare, is a cosmetics manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Chester Springs, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, Suite 4667 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com ben@gr-firm.com LEGACY TOUCH: Unlawfully Collects Customers' Biometrics, Mayo Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MEAGON MAYO, LAUREN WEINER, DEBORAH PEARLMAN, each individually, as personal representatives of the estates of Pam Kennedy, Mathew Silberman, and Jamie Draper, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEGACY TOUCH, INC., HUGHEY FUNERAL HOME, LTD., GLUECKERT FUNERAL HOME, LTD., and KRISTAN FUNERAL HOME P.C., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01827-DWD (S.D. Ill., August 2, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, invasion of privacy, tortious interference with the right to possess a decedent's remains, civil conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendants' disregard of their customers' privacy rights and misuse of their biometric identifiers and biometric information. The Defendants violated the BIPA by, among other things, (a) failing to develop, publicly disclose, and comply with a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying the biometric data they collect; (b) failing to inform customers in writing about the specific purpose and timeframe of the collection, storage, and use of biometric data; and (c) collecting, storing, and using biometric data without first obtaining a written release executed by the customers, (d) disclosing and (e) profiting from the data. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. Legacy Touch, Inc. is a company that sells funeral goods and services in Lee's Summit, Missouri. Hughey Funeral Home, Ltd. is a funeral provider headquartered in Mount Vernon, Illinois. Glueckert Funeral Home, Ltd. is a funeral provider headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Kristan Funeral Home P.C. is a funeral provider headquartered in Mundelein, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Patrick S. Montoya, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 458-1797 Email: pmontoya@milberg.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Brendan S. Thompson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Email: charles@cuneolaw.com brendant@cuneolaw.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Ian Engdahl, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7154 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com iengdahl@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - Charles Barrett, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC 1201 Demonbreun St., Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-1713 Email: cbarrett@nealharwell.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing of Class Cert Reply Extended to Dec. 6 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maria Cortinas v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, Case No. 5:22-cv-00544 (W.D. Tex., Filed May 26, 2022), the Hon. Judge Orlando L Garcia entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend the deadline for a response to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification: -- Defendants' deadline to respond to Nov. 8, 2024 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is extended to: -- The plaintiffs' deadline to reply Dec. 6, 2024 is extended to: The nature of suit alleges violation of the Diversity-Insurance Contract. Liberty Mutual is an American diversified global insurer.[CC] LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Mitchell Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled 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, was removed from the Superior Court of the State California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 2, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00991 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for expenditures, and unfair business practices. Lineage Logistics Services, LLC is a logistics company based in Michigan. [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 Email: cagraham@littler.com cmartin@littler.com - and - Alexandria Rafizadeh, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 Email: awitte-rafizadeh@littler.com MAERSK INC: Class Settlement Deal in Leon Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLENE P. LEON, individually, and as a representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of the Maersk Inc. Savings Plan, v. MAERSK INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MAERSK INC., and THE PENSION COMMITTEE OF MAERSK INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00602-RJC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert Conrad Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement agreement. This litigation arose out of claims of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), asserted against the Defendants, relating to the management of the Maersk Inc. Savings Plan. Presented to the Court for preliminary approval is a Settlement of the litigation as against all Defendants. The terms of the Settlement are set out in a Class Action Settlement Agreement dated July 2, 2024, executed by Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel. Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement. The Court approves and orders that Analytics Consulting LLC shall be the Settlement Administrator responsible for carrying out the responsibilities set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The following Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for settlement purposes only pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1): "All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period." Excluded from the Settlement Class are the current and former members of the Pension Committee of Maersk Inc. during the Class Period. The Court appoints Charlene P. Leon as representative for the Settlement Class. Further, the Court appoints Walcheske & Luzi, LLC and Fitzgerald Litigation, as counsel for the Settlement Class. The Settling Parties have presented to the Court the Settlement Notice, which is the proposed form of notice regarding the Settlement for electronic mailing to Class Members Maersk is an integrated logistics company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dfHvLZ at no extra charge.[CC] MAGNOLIA BANK: Class Certification Filing Extended to Jan. 6, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONIA JEWELL, v. MAGNOLIA BANK, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00078-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order as follows: 1. The scheduling order is amended to extend the following deadlines by 60 days for the parties to mediate: a. Jan. 6, 2025: Plaintiff shall move for class certification and disclose experts in support of class certification. b. Mar. 6, 2025: Defendant shall file its opposition to class certification and disclose experts in opposition to class certification. c. May 6, 2025: Plaintiff shall file her reply in support of class certification. d. All other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order on discovery and merits experts remain the same. 2. Within 30 days of the entry of this order, the parties shall file a notice in the record advising the Court of their mediation date and schedule. The parties in this matter have jointly filed a stipulation “seeking an order from the Court staying this action pending mediation.” The parties also request "that all current case deadlines are extended by an amount of time equal to the length of the stay." The parties assert that the request to "stay the case pending mediation" is made "for purposes of judicial economy and to prevent unnecessary litigation costs." Because the parties are requesting relief which requires Court approval, as opposed to merely informing the Court of an agreement between the parties, the Court construes the parties' stipulation as a joint motion requesting a stay of proceedings and extension of deadlines. Magnolia Bank was founded in 1919 and offers both purchase and refinance home loans in all 50 states. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TDO71s at no extra charge.[CC] MAISON EX NIHILO: Larsen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maison Ex Nihilo Usa Inc. The case is styled as Clifford Larsen, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Maison Ex Nihilo Usa Inc., Case No. 24STCV19247 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 1, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Maison Ex Nihilo USA Inc. -- https://www.us.ex-nihilo-paris.com/ -- offers a collection of perfumes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max William Gavron, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Email: mgavron@diversitylaw.com MARY MAHONEY'S: Sells Foreign Fish to Consumers, McCain Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TODD MCCAIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARY MAHONEY'S, INC. d/b/a MARY MAHONEY'S OLD FRENCH HOUSE, ANTHONY C. CVITANOVICH, COCONSPIRATORS 2–4, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1–10, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00241-TBM-RPM (S.D. Miss., August 2, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act, common law fraud, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged criminal scheme and conspiracy of defrauding thousands of consumers by knowingly and willfully importing, mislabeling, marketing, and selling inexpensive frozen foreign fish as high-priced premium fresh fish, when in fact the species sold were neither the species advertised, nor locally caught in the Mississippi Gulf. Instead of purchasing high-priced premium fish, including Red Snapper, Redfish, and/or Snapper from the Gulf, the Plaintiff and the putative Class were fraudulently sold inexpensive frozen foreign fish by the Defendants, including Perch from Africa, Tripletail from South America, and Unicorn Filefish from India. These fish species would not have been marketable, or substantially less profitably sold, if the actual species and origin had been known to the Plaintiff and the putative class. As a result of the Defendants' fraudulent scheme, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages, says the suit. Mary Mahoney's, Inc., doing business as Mary Mahoney's Old French House, is a seafood restaurant owner and operator located in Biloxi, Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Bobby Gill, III, Esq. James M. Priest, Jr., Esq. GILL, LADNER & PRIEST, PLLC 344 Highway 51, Second Floor Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 352-5700 Email: bobby@glplawfirm.com jamie@glplawfirm.com - and - Gerald M. Abdalla, Jr., Esq. ABDALLA LAW, PLLC 602 Steed Road, Suite 200 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 278-6055 Email: jerry@abdalla-law.com - and - Joey D. Dumas, Esq. DUMAS LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 3046 Mobile, AL 36652 Telephone: (251) 222-6669 Email: joey@joeydumaslaw.com MATTRESS FIRM: Hampton Sues Over False Reference Price & Sale Price ------------------------------------------------------------------- ERICA HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. MATTRESS FIRM INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-06488-ODW-E (C.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2024) seeks to address Defendant's misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its website www.mattressfirm.com. According to the complaint, the products at issue are comprised of all mattresses that have been offered on the website at a sale or discounted price from a higher reference price. The Defendant advertises false, misleading, and inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a belief that the sale price is a discounted bargain price. All or nearly all the reference prices on the website are false and misleading. They are not former or regular prices at which the products were offered on the website in the recent past for a substantial time. They are inflated prices posted to lure consumers into purchasing items from the Defendant, the suit asserts. By using false reference pricing and false limited time sales, the Defendant artificially drives up demand for the products, and by extension drives up the price of the products. As a result, consumers received a product worth less than the price paid. As a result, consumers are deceived into spending money they otherwise would not have spent, purchasing items they would not have purchased, and/or spending more money for an item than they otherwise would have absent deceptive marketing, says the suit. Ms. Hampton is a resident of the State of California and County of Ventura. She was present in Ventura County at the time she made her purchase from the website. The Defendant is an online and brick-and-mortar retailer of home and bedding products, including mattresses, mattress toppers, box springs, bed bases, pillows and bedding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 E-mail: awolf@milberg.com MAUREEN CORCORAN: Magistrate Judge's R&R Partly Accepted -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFAR KYNWULF, v. MAUREEN CORCORAN, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00213-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah Morrison entered an order sustaining in part and overruling in part the Plaintiffs' Objection: -- Thus, the Court accepts in part and rejects in part the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. -- Mr. Kynwulf has stated a claim under First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 based on his allegation that the Defendants denied his religious exemption requests so that he could remain in the SRS program. All other allegations are dismissed. -- Mr. Knywulf's Notice of Putative Class Action Possibility is denied, and his motion to expedite is denied. In her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Kynwulf's Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Magistrate Judge determined that Mr. Kynwulf seeks to advance a First Amendment right to free exercise of religion claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 based on the denial of his request for a religious exemption from the MER provisions of the SRS program. Mr. Kynwulf brought this suit against Maureen Corcoran, Matt Damschroder, Robert Bryne, Jamie Wilkinson, Katelyn Hart, Stephanie Freeman, Susan Lehman, Jon Fitzmaurice, and Jocelyn Lowe. He claims that Defendants’ actions violated his constitutional right to a religious exemption from the MER provisions of the SRS program. Mr. Kynwulf co-owns a home with Yvonne Groudle, they are both members of the Ancestral Ways religion. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MkAQJu at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2873: Marzalen Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEITH JAMES MARZALEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04275-RMG (D.S.C., August 2, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The Marzalen case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. CB Garment, Inc. is a protective clothing manufacturer based in Oregon. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Daikin America, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Alabama. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services based in Georgia. Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of health & safety solutions in Ohio. Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a manufacturer and supplier of turnout gear and other products in New Hampshire. Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of personal protective equipment (PPE) based in Rhode Island. Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of protective clothing products based in Canada. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and industrial business company based in Wisconsin. Kidde PLC Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in North Carolina. L.N. Curtis & Sons is a provider of emergency responder equipment based in California. Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia, Ohio. Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company headquartered in South Carolina. Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of advanced safety products, technologies, and solutions based in Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania. Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company offering fire equipment services in Connecticut. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in North Carolina. Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri. Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is a protective clothing manufacturing company in Pennsylvania. Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a fabric solutions company in South Carolina. Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia. Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier technologies based in Tennessee. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of firefighting gear and protective equipment based in England. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturing company in Delaware. Witmer Public Safety Group is a safety equipment supplier in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Selby, II, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905 Birmingham, AL 35244 Telephone: (205) 988-9253 Facsimile: (205) 788-4896 Email: dselby@baileyglasser.com MDL 3078: Class Cert Filing in Locatell v. GPSI Due Nov. 3, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Locatell v. Generac Power Systems Inc et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00683 (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 Locatell 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=DNF09l at no extra charge.[CC] MISSISSIPPI: Appeals Ruling in Jones Class Suit to 5th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSH HARKINS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Rickey D. Jones, all in their official capacities as Commissioners on the Board of Commissioners of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority and in their individual capacities as citizens of the City of Jackson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Josh Harkins, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-246, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The appellate case is captioned Jones v. Reeves, Case No. 24-60371, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on July 22, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Rickey D. Jones, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: LaToya Cheree Merritt, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR, L.L.P. 4270 I-55, N. Jackson, MS 39211 Telephone: (601) 352-2300 - and – Eugene Carlos Tanner, III, Esq. TANNER & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. 263 E. Pearl Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 460-1745 Defendants-Appellants JOSH HARKINS, et al. are represented by: Michael Brunson Wallace, Esq. WISE CARTER CHILD & CARAWAY, P.A. 401 E. Capitol Street Heritage Building Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 968-5500 MULTIPLAN INC: Conspires to Suppress Provider Payments, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- FIRST RESPONDERS WELLNESS CENTER, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MULTIPLAN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06825 (N.D. Ill., August 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant conspires with insurers to suppress the payments that healthcare providers, like the Plaintiff and the Class, receive for providing out-of-network health care services to patients. MultiPlan charges insurers for subscriptions. In return, MultiPlan provides claims handling and repricing services. The prices MultiPlan extracts from providers on behalf of the co-conspirators are take-it-or-leave-it offers that providers must accept lest they face extended delays or the risk of receiving no payment at all. As a result, MultiPlan and its co-conspirators extract and pocket as profit payments that can exceed the unlawfully diminished amount paid to the provider for providing the medical care, says the suit. First Responders Wellness Center, LLC is a corporation specializing in strategic therapy and intervention techniques, located in Illinois. MultiPlan, Inc. is a data analytics and cost management company based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq. Bret K. Pufahl, Esq. FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC 1541 E. Fabyan Parkway, Suite 101 Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone: (630) 232-7450 Email: kcc@fmcolaw.com ecc@fmcolaw.com bkp@fmcolaw.com - and - Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. David Rochelson, Esq. Deborah Elman, Esq. GARWIN GERSEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 398-0055 Email: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com drochelson@garwingerstein.com delman@garwingerstein.com - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. Zachary D. Caplan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: dsorensen@bm.net pmadden@bm.net zcaplan@bm.net - and - Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 Email: dwalker@bm.net - and - Stuart Des Roches, Esq. Andrew Kelly, Esq. Dan Chiorean, Esq. Chris Letter, Esq. ODOM & DES ROCHES LLC Poydras Center 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 522-0077 Email: stuart@odrlaw.com akelly@odrlaw.com dchiorean@odrlaw.com cletter@odrlaw.com - and - Susan Segura, Esq. David C. Raphael, Esq. Erin R. Leger, Esq. SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER LLP 1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100 Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 445-4480 Email: ssegura@ssrllp.com draphael@ssrllp.com eleger@ssrllp.com - and - D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq. Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB LLC The Kress Building 301 Nineteenth Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0557 Email: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com dgp@wigginschilds.com NADA #1 INC: Mason Sues Over Unpaid OT, Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------- PARIS MASON, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NADA #1, INC d/b/a SALAMA SUPER MARKET, KHALED ISA SALAMEH, and AHMED MOHAMMED SALAMEH, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01031-RHH (E.D. Mo., July 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of contract. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages for any worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. She asserts that Defendants breached their contract with her by failing and refusing to pay her the applicable hourly rate as she routinely worked more hours than she was paid. Plaintiff Mason was employed by Defendant Salama as a cashier at its gas station and supermarket. Nada #1, Inc. operates a mobile gas station and convenience store in North St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan M. Kaemmerer, Esq. MCCARTHY, LEONARD, KAEMMERER, L.C. 825 Maryville Centre Drive, Suite 300 Town & Country, MO 63017 Telephone: (314) 392-5200 Facsimile: (314) 392-5221 E-mail: bkaemmerer@mlklaw.com NBT BANCORP: Bid for Class Certification in Richey Due May 30, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Heather Richey, et al., v. NBT Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00362-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to join any person as a party to this action shall be made on or before Dec. 2, 2024. -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be made on or before Dec. 2, 2024. -- The parties are directed to file a status report on or before Oct. 8, 2024. -- Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures are to be exchanged by July 25, 2024. -- Initial Written Discovery Demands must be served by Aug. 31, 2024. -- All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before Sept. 5, 2025. -- Motion for conditional certification are to be filed on or before Jan. 31, 2025. -- Motion for class certification are to be filed on or before May 30, 2025. NBT Bancorp is a financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JbIS3e at no extra charge.[CC] NEEKA INC: McDougal Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neeka, Inc. The case is styled as Ramiah McDougal, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Neeka, Inc., Ahmad Razban, Case No. 5:24-cv-00132-BJB (W.D. Ky., Aug. 1, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. Neeka, Inc. is a used car dealer in North Reading, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter J. Jannace, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC 515 Park Avenue Louisville, KY 40208 Phone: (646) 783-9810 Email: peter@hsglawgroup.com NEIMAN MARCUS: Reichbart Sues Over Failure to Secure PII -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Reichbart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP LLC, and SNOWFLAKE, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-61389-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 1, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of its customers, including, but not limited to: names, emails, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, last four digits of Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, transaction data, and employee identification numbers. On May 20, 2024, Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against unauthorized disclosure--was compromised in a data breach (hereafter referred to as, the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach included personal details of about 31million customers. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves. ShinyHunters, the hacker group claiming responsibility for the Data Breach, has been linked to a string of high-profile data breaches resulting in millions of dollars in losses. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's (or Snowflake's) failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect PII from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendant implemented reasonable administrative, technical, and/or physical controls consistent with industry standards and its own Privacy Policy, the Data Breach would have been prevented. The Defendant's (or Snowflake's) conduct resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's private information to cybercriminals. The unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's PII constitutes an invasion of a legally protected privacy interest, that is traceable to the Defendant's (or Snowflake's) failure to adequately secure the PII in its custody (or under its control), and has resulted in actual, particularized, and concrete harm to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered actual injury in the form of damages to and diminution in the value of the PII that was compromised as a result of the Data Breach. The injuries Plaintiff suffered, as described herein, can be redressed by a favorable decision in this matter, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a data breach notice letter from Defendant in July 2024. Neiman Marcus Group LLC is the parent company of leading U.S. multi brand luxury retailers Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com NESTED BEAN INC: Massari Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lauryn Massari, Aziza Salameh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nested Bean, Inc. Case No. 8:24-cv-01225 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 2, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-12004-JEK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Nested Bean, Inc. -- https://www.nestedbean.com/ -- offers innovative self-soothing infant sleepwear that mimics gentle touch in key areas for uninterrupted comfort.[BN] The Plaintiff are represented by: Alan Gudino, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Kelsey Jane Elling, Esq. Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: (213) 788-4050 Fax: (213) 788-4070 Email: agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com NEW YORK: Alshami Suit Removed to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mohamed Alshami, Nadeem Mohammad, Derrick Trotman, David Irizarry, and Jeffrey Pawall, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Case No. 155711/2024 was removed from the New York State Supreme Court Action currently pending in New York County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 31, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06560. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs--employees of the City University of New York--allege that the State has discriminated against them on the basis of race. The Plaintiffs assert causes of action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Valli, Jr., Esq. Sara Wyn Kane, Esq. Matthew Berman, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-718 The Defendants are represented by: Letitia James, Esq. Eva L. Dietz, Esq. Assistant Attorney General 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 416-6211 NFHS NETWORK: Kasper VPPA Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled STEVEN KASPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NFHS NETWORK, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 24CV080631, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on August 1, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-04682 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act and California's Unfair Competition Law by disclosing the Plaintiff's and Class members' private information about their personal video-viewing habits and activities to Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook) without their consent. NFHS Network, LLC is a provider of streaming live and on-demand high school sports and activities headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jahmy S. Graham, Esq. Michael E. Seager, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 19191 South Vermont Avenue, Suite 900 Torrance, CA 90502 Telephone: (424) 221-7400 Facsimile: (424) 221-7499 Email: jahmy.graham@nelsonmullins.com michael.seager@nelsonmullins.com - and - Benjamin J. Sitter, Esq. Six PPG Place, Suite 700 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 730-4050 Facsimile: (412) 567-9241 Email: ben.sitter@nelsonmullins.com NIKE RETAIL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Jones Amended to Nov. 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAGID JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-03343-NRM-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending scheduling order as follows: -- All discovery, inclusive of expert Oct. 30, 2024 discovery, to be concluded: -- Plaintiffs' motion for class cert bid: Nov. 8, 2024 Nike Retail is engaged in the retail sale of men's, women's and children's footwear. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sIwqMJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Facsimile: (631) 499-9120 E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com gkaske@kesslermatura.com - and - Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 447 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 The Defendant is represented by: Matthew A. Tobias, Esq. Lindsay C. Stone, Esq. Maria A. Gomez, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Telephone: (212) 653-8700 Facsimile: (212) 653-8701 E-mail: mtobias@sheppardmullin.com lstone@sheppardmullin.com magomez@sheppardmullin.com NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiffs Seek Extension to Amend Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian et al., v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00017-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a 30 day extension of time to amend the Complaint to Sept. 3, 2024, and a corresponding 30-day extension of the time to move for class action determination to Sept. 26, 2024 To effectively amend the Complaint in this matter, Plaintiffs request an additional 30 days to speak with non-client juveniles at North Carolina Detention Centers and review additional discovery. The Plaintiffs also request a corresponding 30-day extension to move for class certification, so that the deadline for the class certification pleading will follow the time allowed for additional discovery and the filing of the amended complaint. The anticipated additional discovery will be critical for Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs have been diligently requesting and reviewing discovery; however, more time is necessary to obtain additional relevant information underlying the claims in this matter before amending their Complaint. Specifically, on May 3, 2024, Plaintiffs served their First Requests for Production on all Defendants. Plaintiffs agreed to an extension of Defendants’ time to respond to Plaintiffs’ First Requests, and Defendants served their Responses and Objections on June 13, 2024. On June 7, 2024, Although the Defendants have responded to Plaintiffs' written discovery, significant document productions remain. In addition, the Plaintiffs understand that the Defendants are still working to produce the majority of the logbooks showing time of confinement for juveniles at each Juvenile Detention Center as well as video surveillance from the Juvenile Detention Centers The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action on Jan. 8, 2024. Following two consent motions for extensions of time for the Defendants to answer, the Defendants answered the Plaintiffs' Complaint on April 4, 2024. The Plaintiffs include JANE DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2, a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian JANE DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3, a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian JANE DOE 3; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The Defendants include EDDIE M. BUFFALOE, JR., Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, in his official capacity; WILLIAM L. LASSITER, Deputy Secretary of the Division of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, in his official capacity; PETER BROWN, Facility Director of the Cabarrus Regional Juvenile Detention Center, in his official capacity. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p29XHJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert L. Lindholm, Esq. Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Esq. Soren Young, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP One Wells Fargo Center, 23rd Floor 301 South College Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 417-3000 E-mail: robert.lindholm@nelsonmullins.com matthew.lindenbaum@nelsonmullins.com soren.young@nelsonmullins.com - and - Michelle Duprey, Esq. COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 601 E. Fifth Street, Suite 510 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 943-9642 E-mail: MDuprey@cfcrights.org ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Hubacek Securities Suit in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- ON Semiconductor Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2024 that on December 13, 2023, a putative class action captioned "Hubacek v. ON Semiconductor Corp., et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-01429 (D. Del.), was filed by an alleged stockholder of the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the company and certain of its officers. An amended complaint was filed on May 31, 2024 which again asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The company file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 30, 2024. Additional written briefing on this motion to dismiss the amended complaint is expected to be completed by October 30, 2024. The complaint alleges that the defendants made misleading statements regarding the company's silicon carbide (SiC) business. The plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs. ON Semiconductor Corporation provide intelligent power and sensing solutions with a primary focus towards automotive and industrial markets. OPENAI INC: YouTuber Sues Over Scraping Creators' Transcripts ------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Wiggers, writing for Tech Crunch, reports that a YouTube creator is seeking to bring a class action lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging that the company trained its generative AI models on millions of transcripts from YouTube videos without notifying or compensating the videos' owners. In a complaint filed Friday, August 2, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, attorneys for David Millette, a YouTube user based in Massachusetts, allege that OpenAI surreptitiously transcribed Millette's and other creators' videos to train the models that power the company's AI-powered chatbot platform, ChatGPT, and other generative AI tools and products. By collecting this data, OpenAI "profited significantly" from the creators' work, the complaint alleges, while violating copyright law and YouTube's terms of service that prohibit the use of videos for apps independent of its service. "As [OpenAI's] AI products become more sophisticated through the use of training data sets, they become more valuable to prospective and current users, who purchase subscriptions to access [OpenAI's] AI products," the complaint reads. "Much of the material in OpenAI's training data sets, however, comes from works that were copied by OpenAI without consent, without credit, and without compensation." Millette, represented by the law firm Bursor & Fisher, is seeking a jury trial and over $5 million in damages for all YouTube users and creators whose data might've been swept up in OpenAI's training. Generative AI models like OpenAI's have no real intelligence. Fed an enormous number of examples (e.g., movies, voice recordings, essays), models "learn" how likely data is to occur based on patterns, including the context of any surrounding data. Most models are trained on data sourced from public websites and datasets around the web. Companies argue that fair use shields their efforts to scrape data indiscriminately and use it for training commercial models. Many copyright holders disagree, however -- and they're filing suits aimed at halting practice. Video transcriptions have become a key training data ingredient as other data wells dry up, so to speak. Last year, Google broadened its terms of service (ToS) partly to allow the company to tap more user data for generative AI model training. Under the old ToS, it wasn't clear whether Google could use YouTube data to build products beyond the video platform. Not so under the new terms, which loosen the reins considerably. We've reached out to OpenAI and Google for comment on the class action suit and will update this piece if they respond. It's been a rough start to the month for OpenAI. Tesla and X CEO Elon Musk on Monday, August 5, filed a new suit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman accusing the company of abandoning its original nonprofit mission by reserving some of its most sophisticated tech for commercial customers. Musk made the same claims in a February lawsuit against OpenAI, but the new suit alleges that OpenAI is engaging in racketeering activity as well.[GN] OTTAWA COUNTY: Appeals Ruling in Baker Suit to Mich. Ct. of Appeals ------------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA L. BAKER is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Linda L. Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Ottawa County, Defendant, in the Ottawa Circuit Court, Michigan. The appellate case is captioned Linda L. Baker vs. Ottawa County, Case No. 371814, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on July 25, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LINDA L. BAKER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Donald R. Visser, Esq. VISSER AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC 2480 44th St. SE, Suite 150 Kentwood, MI 49512 Telephone: (616) 531-9860 Facsimile: (616) 531-9870 Email: donv@visserlegal.com Defendant-Appellee OTTAWA COUNTY is represented by: Douglas W. Vanessen, Esq. 300 Ottawa Avenue N.W., Suite 620 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 988-5600 Facsimile: (616) 988-5606 PALM PLAZA: Disabled Can't Access Property Properly, Brito Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALM PLAZA OF MIAMI, INC., HERNANDEZ FOOD STORE, CORP. d/b/a EXPRESS FOOD STORE; and CECL CORP d/b/a RANCHO NANDO LATIN BAR & GRILL, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22983 (S.D. Fla., August 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of their property and businesses. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such as parking, entrance access and path of travel, and public restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for its place of public accommodation. Palm Plaza of Miami, Inc. is a company that owns commercial property in Florida. Hernandez Food Store, Corp., doing business as Express Food Store, is a company that owns a commercial store in Florida. Cecl Corp., doing business as Rancho Nando Latin Bar & Grill, is a company that owns a commercial restaurant in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com PANERA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Chan Suit Modified to Oct. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order granting Plaintiff's applications for ex parte relief to modify the scheduling order: Previous New Deadline Deadline Plaintiff's Last Day to file Aug. 30, 2024 Oct. 25, 2024 their Motion for Class Certification Defendant's Last Day to File Sept. 27, 2024 Nov. 22, 2024 an Opposition to Motion for Class Certification Plaintiff's Last Day to File Oct. 25, 2024 Dec. 20, 2024 a Reply in Support of the Motion for Class Certification Fact Discovery Cut-off Nov. 29, 2024 Nov. 29, 2024 Last Day to File Motions Dec. 13, 2024 Jan. 24, 2025 (Excluding Daubert Motions and all other Motions in Limine) and Last Day to Serve Initial Expert Reports Last Day to Conduct Settlement Jan. 31, 2025 Mar. 14, 2025 Proceedings Panera operates as a chain of bakery-cafes. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LCxdx8 at no extra charge.[CC] PARTS AUTHORITY: Cranmore Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jermaine Cranmore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PARTS AUTHORITY, LLC, PARTS AUTHORITY WAW LLC, DRA LOGISTICS CORP. d/b/a WORKFORCE, and 130 ST EQUITIES LLC d/b/a WORKFORCE, Case No. 1:24-cv-05842 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, 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 ("NYLL"), and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act, NYLL ("WTPA"). The Plaintiff frequently worked an additional two or three hours on Fridays during this period, totaling approximately fifty-eight or fifty-nine hours per workweek on weeks when he worked the longer Friday shifts. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Warehouse Workers overtime wages for hours worked over forty per workweek. the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Warehouse Workers spread-of hours pay, an additional hour's pay at the basic minimum wage rate, on days when they worked shifts spanning in excess of ten hours. The Defendants did not use a punch-in/punch-out or other time-keeping system to record the Plaintiff and the Warehouse Workers' hours worked. The Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff and the Warehouse Workers with a wage notice at their time of hire or when their rates of pay changed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a car parts stocker and scanner at the Bronx Warehouse throughout his employment. Parts Authority LLC is Delaware limited liability company registered in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Galen C. Baynes, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 583-9500 Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com baynes@pechmanlaw.com PATRIOT (2010) LLC: Class Certification Bids Due March 7, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joshua Bryan, v. Patriot (2010), LLC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00415-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order setting scheduling order: -- Any motion to join any person as a party Nov. 29, 2024 to this action shall be made on or before: -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this Nov. 29, 2024 action shall be made on or before: -- The parties are directed to file a status Sept. 30, 2024 report on or before: -- Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures are July 24, 2024 to be exchanged by: -- Initial Written Discovery Demands must Aug. 30, 2024 be served by: -- All discovery in this matter is to be Sept. 30, 2025 completed on or before: -- Conditional certification motions are to Nov. 1, 2024 be filed on or before: -- Class certification motions are to be March 7, 2025 filed on or before: A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pIaW0S at no extra charge.[CC] PHBC MARKETING: Loses Bid to Dismiss Settle Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURIE SETTLE, as representative for BRUCE SETTLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. PHBC MARKETING, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-00404-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sean Flynn entered an order (1) denying PHBC's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint; and (2) directing the Defendant to file its Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on or before Aug. 15, 2024. The Court agrees with the weight of authority and finds that the issue of "whether Plaintiff's claim deserves class treatment is a fact-dependent inquiry unsuitable for a motion to dismiss or strike." On Feb. 13, 2024, Plaintiff Laurie Settle, as representative for Bruce Settle, filed this lawsuit against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (the "FTSA"), and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"). The Plaintiff alleges PHBC used an automatic telephone dialing system to call Bruce Settle two times on May 11, 2023, and May 12, 2023, without his consent. On March 12, 2024, PHBC filed a Motion to Dismiss or for a More Definite Statement. PHBC specializes in professional telemarketing services and hosted call centers. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QTKPpH at no extra charge.[CC] PNC BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Ratulowski Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCENT I. RATULOWSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PNC BANK, N.A., d/b/a PNC AUTO FINANCE, Case No. 2:22-cv-00004-PPS-APR (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Philip Simon entered an order: -- granting PNC's Motion to Dismiss Counts II–IV of Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action Complaint, -- dismissing Counts II–IV for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and -- denying PNC's Motion to Strike Class Allegations from Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Judge Simon said, "I am unpersuaded that the breach of contract class allegations are facially and inherently deficient, such that they should be cut off at the pleadings. If and when Ratulowski seeks certification of his breach of contract class, it will be for me to decide whether the facts in the record support class treatment or, as PNC forcefully argues, such a class would be hopelessly unmanageable." The Plaintiff Vincent Ratulowski claims that PNC Bank knowingly collects and unlawfully retains unearned insurance fees that are sold as an add-on to automobile finance agreements. The case about "GAP fees" -- shorthand for "Guaranteed Asset Protection" fees -- and a creditor's legal obligation to remit any such fees paid by a customer but "unearned" by the creditor. Ratulowski claims that he and members of three putative classes were injured when they paid off their car loans early, resulting in PNC obtaining "unearned GAP fees" that PNC did not refund. Ratulowski previously sought to certify a "Multi-State Class" consisting of persons who entered into auto finance agreements with GAP Addendums in one of six "Automatic Refund States" while such laws were in effect and who did not receive a credit or refund of unearned GAP fees, as well as an "Indiana Subclass" consisting of all such persons who did so while Indiana's "Automatic Refund Law" was in effect and who did not receive a credit or refund of unearned GAP fees. Both of these putative classes were defined to those individuals who entered into finance agreements while the applicable state laws were in effect. In the Second Amended Complaint, Ratulowski renews his claim for breach of the express terms of his finance agreement and GAP Addendum (Count I) and seeks to assert claims on behalf of a "breach of contract" class consisting of Indiana customers who entered agreements with substantially similar terms. PNC Bank offers a variety of auto loans with competitive interest rates. A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C9hoMk at no extra charge.[CC] POLARIS INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POLARIS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05695 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.polaris.com/en-us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on June 3, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Polaris Northstar Cooler from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Polaris Inc. is an American automotive manufacturer headquartered in Medina, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. 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: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal QATAR AIRWAYS: Lagos Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled EDELYN LAGOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QATAR AIRWAYS Q.C.S.C., a foreign corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV16189, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 1, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06529 to the proceeding. The case arises from Qatar Airways' violations of the California Labor Code and the California Unfair Business Practices Act including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to maintain and produce employment records, failure to pay wages at termination, and failure to reimburse employment-related expenditures. Qatar Airways Q.C.S.C. is a provider of airlines services headquartered in Doha, Qatar. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam J. Karr, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 Email: akarr@omm.com - and - Kelly S. Wood, Esq. Allan W. Gustin, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 823-6900 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 Email: kwood@omm.com agustin@omm.com RAY PRICE: Zynda Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as James Anthony Zynda, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ray Price, 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00867 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Aug. 1, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04243-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 322-6000 Fax: (404) 322-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com RED WHITE & BREWS: Fancher Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Marcy Fancher, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Red White & Brews, LLC d/b/a PW Cheers and Paula Willey, Case No. 1:24-cv-01330 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 2, 2024), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio Revised Code Ann, for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants violated the FLSA and Ohio law by enforcing a policy or practice of paying Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members sub-minimum, tip-credit wages even when it required those employees to perform non-tipped work that is unrelated to their tipped occupation (i.e., "dual jobs"). The Defendants violated the FLSA and Ohio law by enforcing a policy and practice of paying Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members sub-minimum, tip-credit wages while requiring those employees to perform work that does not provide service to customers for which tipped employees receive tips and does not directly support tip-producing work. The Defendants violated the FLSA and Ohio law by failing to inform Plaintiff, the Collective Members, and the Class Members of the amount of cash wage that Defendants would be paying them prior to taking the tip credit. The Defendants violated the FLSA and Ohio law by failing to inform Plaintiff, the Collective Members, and the Class Members of the amount that Defendants would be claiming as a tip credit prior to taking the tip credit. Defendants violated the FLSA and Ohio by failing to inform Plaintiff, the Collective Members, and the Class Members that they must still earn the mandated minimum wage between the amount of the tip credit taken by the employer and the amount of tips earned by the employee prior to taking the tip credit against Plaintiff's, the Collective Members' and the Class Members' wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a server at PW Cheers from April 1, 2024 until May 31, 2024. The Defendants owned and operated PW Cheers bar and restaurant.[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 REVIVAL TEA: Knowles Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REVIVAL TEA COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05944 (S.D.N.Y., August 5, 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, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.revivalteacompany.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), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. 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. Revival Tea Company, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal RITE AID: Spiker Sues Over Customers' Compromised Private Info -------------------------------------------------------------- FAITH SPIKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03807 (E.D. Pa., August 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, bailment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored on its network systems following a data breach on June 6, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Rite Aid Corporation is a drugstore chain operator based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mindee J. Reuben, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 854-4060 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: 973-623-3000 Facsimile: 973-623-0858 Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com ROSEMONT EXPOSITION: Rule Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Akeem Rule, as an individual and on the behalf of similarly situated persons v. ROSEMONT EXPOSITION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06707 (N.D. Ill., July 31, 2024), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), for Defendant's failure to pay earned wages, and minimum wage to Plaintiff. Despite the repeated demands, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff their earned wages. In response, Defendant told Plaintiff to stop asking about their check. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer the following damages: unpaid wages, loss of income, mental anguish, emotional distress, financial distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. Upon information and belief, records concerning the number of hours worked and amounts paid to Plaintiff, to the extent they have not been destroyed by Defendant, are in Defendant's possession, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a machine operator (a non-exempt employee) beginning on August 20, 2022, and remains employed in this function. Rosemont Exposition Services, Inc. is a corporation doing business in and for Cook County in the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone (331) 272-1942 Fax (630) 575-8188 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com ROSWELL COUNTRY: Peyton Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Bartenders -------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY PEYTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSWELL COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00780 (D.N.M., August 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a bartender from approximately June 2021 to April 2024. Roswell Country Club, Inc. is an operator of a country club in Roswell, New Mexico known as the Country Club of Roswell. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Johnson Wins Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ann Johnson, as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd Retirement Savings Plan, v. Russell Investments Trust Company, fka Russell Trust Company and others, Case No. 1:22-cv-21735-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. entered an order granting motion for class certification: Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) have been satisfied with respect to the Plaintiff’s proposed class, and that certification is appropriate under both Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and Rule 23(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for class certification (ECF No. 152) and orders as follows: 1. The following Class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. Retirement Savings Plan at any time from Oct. 1, 2015, to the date Russell was removed as the Plan's investment manager. 2. The Court appoints Plaintiff Ann Johnson as Class Representative. 3. The Court appoints Johnson's counsel as Class Counsel. Plaintiff Ann Johnson, as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd Retirement Savings Plan, has moved for class certification. In response, Defendants Russell Investments Trust Company, formerly known as Russell Trust Company, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., and Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Investment Committee jointly advise that, after reviewing the motion, they are unopposed to class certification. After careful review of the Plaintiff's briefing, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, and in light of the Defendants’ lack of opposition, the Court grants the motion for class certification for the reasons that follow. Finally, certification under Rule 23(b)(1) is also appropriate. Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is satisfied because the Defendants owe uniform fiduciary duties to the class as a whole, and conflicting or varying adjudications in various lawsuits could establish incompatible standards for the Defendants' managing of the Plan. Russell Investments is global investment solutions firm providing a wide range of investment capabilities. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ou0xhn at no extra charge.[CC] RYDER INTEGRATED: Court Stays Pending Discovery in Nance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFENY NANCE, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, v. RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and RYDER SYSTEM, INC., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00477-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy Nunley entered an order as follows: 1. All current and pending discovery in this case is stayed for 180 days from Aug. 1, 2024 until Jan. 28, 2025. 2. All current and pending discovery deadlines in this case are continued by 180 days. 3. Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification is extended by 180 days from Feb. 28, 2025 to Aug. 27, 2025. The Parties' agree that this preliminarily certified class for settlement purposes only, as defined, fully covers the entirety of the putative class as defined in this case. In the Courts Order Granting Preliminary Approval, Judge Orrick scheduled a Final Fairness and Approval Hearing on Dec. 11, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. The Parties agree that discovery and all accompanying deadlines must be stayed until at least December 11, 2024 given the injunction contained in the Johnson/Perkins' Court’s Order. On March 13, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her class-action complaint for damages against Ryder in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On Oct. 24, 2023, Ryder and the plaintiffs in the Perkins and Johnson actions participated in a successful mediation and agreed to a settlement in principle that, by definition, Ryder states encompasses the putative class and claims alleged in Plaintiff's Class Action. Ryder Integrated provides transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IEpk5W at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Stuart H. Kluft, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com skluft@schneiderwallace.com The Defendants are represented by: Mara D. Curtis, Esq. Rafael N. Tumanyan, Esq. Tanner J. Hendershot, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 Facsimile: (213) 457-8080 E-mail: mcurtis@reedsmith.com mcurtis@reedsmith.com thendershot@reedsmith.com SCHNADER HARRISON: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JO BENNETT, v. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00592-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for extension of time to answer and file motion for class certification as follows: 1. The Defendants' deadline to file an answer to the Complaint is extended to Aug. 27, 2024. 2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file any motion for class certification is extended to Oct. 22, 2024. 3. All other scheduling deadlines of the May 16, 2024, Scheduling Order shall remain unchanged. Schnader was a U.S. law firm based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=98rmQu at no extra charge.[CC] SCHNADER HARRISON: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JO BENNETT, v. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00592-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion and extending the deadline for the Defendants to file their answer to Aug. 27, 2024, and extending the deadline for the Plaintiff to file any motion for class certification to Oct. 22, 2024. The Defendants and Plaintiff Jo Bennett move for a 21-day extension of time for the Defendants to answer Plaintiff's Complaint and a corresponding 21-day extension of time for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. On Feb. 7, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the Complaint. On May 14, 2024, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. On May 16, 2024, the Court entered the Scheduling Order, which set the deadline for any motion for class certification on Oct. 1, 2024. On July 22, 2024, the Court entered an order denying the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The deadline for Defendants to file an answer to the Complaint is Aug. 6, 2024. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). The Complaint is 43 pages long and contains 169 paragraphs of allegations against 36 Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants request a 21-day extension of time to Aug. 27, 2024, so that they may fully evaluate the assertions in the Complaint and so counsel for Defendants may fully consult with each of the 36 Defendants regarding their responses. The Parties further request a corresponding 21-day extension of time to October 22, 2024, of the deadline for Plaintiff to file any motion for class certification. The Parties have not previously requested an extension of time in connection with filing an answer to the Complaint or the filing of any motion for class certification. This request is not being made for any improper purpose or intended to cause undue delay, nor will granting this request affect any other deadlines. Schnader was a U.S. law firm based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KJdk7B at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Joseph Barton, Esq. BARTON & DOWNES LLP 1633 Connecticut Ave, Suite 200 Washington DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com - and - Adam Harrison Garner, Esq. Melanie J. Garner, Esq. THE GARNER FIRM, LTD. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 645-5955 Facsimile: (215) 645-5960 E-mail: adam@garnerltd.com melanie@garnerltd.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew D. Salek-Raham, Esq. William J. Delany, Esq. Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. M. Caroline Wood, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 861-5408 Facsimile: (202) 659-4503 E-mail: asalek-raham@groom.com wdelany@groom.com lgolumbic@groom.com cwood@groom.com SCOTT W. EPSTEIN: Caputo Sues to Recover Straight Time Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Angela Caputo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. SCOTT W. EPSTEIN, ANTIN, EHRLICH & EPSTEIN, LLP, AND JEFFREY S. ANTIN, Case No. 1:24-cv-05836 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2024), is brought to recover: straight time wages for hours worked between 35 and 40 hours each week, as her salary covered only 35 hours, in violation of the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL"), overtime wages which Defendants failed to pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the NYLL, and damages for Defendants' failures to provide the Notices of Pay Rate and Payday ("Pay Rate Notice") required under the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act (the "WTPA"), and complete and accurate pay statements as required under NYLL. The Plaintiff was neither compensated at her regular hourly rate for hours worked between 70 and 80 hours, nor was she compensated for her overtime worked during that pay period. The Plaintiff, as well as those similar non-exempt employees, were not compensated for all hours worked, nor were they compensated for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a rate of one- and one-half times their regular rate of pay. The Defendants did not provide Plaintiff, and those similarly situated employees, with Pay Rate Notices when they were hired, nor when their pay rates changed, as required by NYLL. Similarly, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to provide accurate and complete wage statements containing all legally required information pursuant to the NYLL, as well as identifying the total hours worked by Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees. As a result of the Defendants' policy of failing to provide proper wage notices and wage statements, Plaintiffs and the NYLL Class members were harmed, as such failure deprived them of the ability to timely contest Defendants' wage calculations, and also delayed providing proper compensation to Plaintiffs and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at their law offices in New York City, New York, as a paralegal from 2001 through July 2022. The Defendant was and is a limited liability partnership engaged in the practice of law in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacqueline L. Aiello, Esq. BOYD RICHARDS PARKER & COLONNELLI, P.L. 1500 Broadway, Suite 505 New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-400-0626 Email: jaiello@boydlawgroup.com SERVICES FOR THE UNDERSERVED: Easy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Donovan Easy, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SERVICES FOR THE UNDERSERVED, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05868 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2024), is brought pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendant: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving; statutory penalties, liquidated damages; and attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff was scheduled to work forty-two-and-one-half (42.5) hours each week. Plaintiff would work his schedule shift plus additional time as detailed below, which went uncompensated. FLSA Plaintiffs and Class members were scheduled to work similar hours and worked similar additional hours in excess of those scheduled hours, which went uncompensated. As a consequence of Defendant's policies, Plaintiff was not compensated for at least 2 hours of overtime per week of work. FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members were similarly deprived full compensation for all hours worked, including overtime hours. The Defendant knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not compensating Plaintiff and Class members on a timely basis pursuant to NYLL. The Defendant knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not compensating Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class members for all earned wages pursuant to NYLL or the FLSA. The Defendant knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class members the proper overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant to work as a Program Specialist. The Defendant owns and manages various locations across New York that provides services to those with developmental disabilities, the homeless, veterans, and behavioral disabilities.[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 Fax: 212-465-1181 SHARECARE INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Altaris Affiliate ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the 'M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Sharecare, Inc. (Nasdaq: SHCR ), relating to its proposed merger with an affiliate of Altaris, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, Sharecare shareholders are expected to receive $1.43 in cash per share of common stock they own. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sharecare-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Davis Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bridgette Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Shutterstock, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-01241-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the action. The Court says that Defendant must file an answer within 14 days. This order resolves ECF No. 26. A status (pretrial scheduling) conference is set for September 26, 2024, at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, with the filing of a Joint Status Report due 14 days prior. The Defendant's motion to strike is premature; its arguments against the proposed class can be renewed in response to a motion to certify the class, the Court adds. The allegations in plaintiff's complaint give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. The motion to dismiss is denied. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action in June 2023, alleging Shutterstock violated the 24 ARL. The Plaintiff amended her complaint, First Am. Compl. (FAC), which the court dismissed with leave to amend because plaintiff did not sufficiently allege she was a consumer, as defined by the ARL. Plaintiff has now filed the second amended complaint. Plaintiff is a "graphic arts hobbyist who enjoys creating visual content" for herself, friends and family. She uses stock images to create social media content and other items such as t-shirts, mugs and pillows. On February 19, 2023, plaintiff alleges she purchased a "FLEX 10 Annual Subscription, Monthly" online subscription for $29.99 from Shutterstock for personal use. She purchased the subscription to create items for herself, family and friends as a hobby, and not for commercial use. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against defendant Shutterstock for alleged violations of California's consumer protection laws. Shutterstock moves to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint, or in the alternative, to strike the class allegations. The court took the matter under submission without holding a hearing and denies the motion. Shutterstock is an American provider of stock photography, stock footage, stock music, and editing tools. A copy of the Court's order dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=av7XXL at no extra charge.[CC] SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Canady Consolidated to Data Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Canady v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00231-BCB-MDN (D. Neb.). In Re Signature Performance Data Breach Litigation, Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska issued an order for consolidation and appointment of co-lead interim class counsel. The matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel filed by the Plaintiffs in each of these related cases: Case Nos. 8:24CV230, 8:24CV231, 8:24CV233, 8:24CV234, 8:24CV235, and 8:24CV252, excluding Coit v. Signature Performance, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:24CV252, which complaint was filed four days after the instant motion was filed. The Plaintiffs seek consolidation of the related cases, as well as any subsequently filed or transferred related actions, for all purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They further request appointment of interim co-lead class counsel to collectively lead this litigation. Finally, the motion seeks to stay all case deadlines in the related actions during the pendency of the motion, including deadlines for the Defendants to respond to the respective complaints, and proposes deadlines for filing and responding to a consolidated complaint. The Court filed a copy of the motion and supporting documents in each of the cases, and ordered that any responses to the motion was due on July 24, 2024. No party filed any opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff Coit has filed a statement of support in support of the motion. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach of the Defendants' computer network by a third-party cybercriminal on or about Jan. 17 and 18, 2024, which resulted in the unauthorized access of sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, dates of services, medical record/case numbers, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, health insurance provider names, health insurance individual policy numbers and/or treatment costs, of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The Defendants began providing affected individuals with notice of the breach in June 2024. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are individuals affected by the data breach, and have brought claims arising out of the Defendants' failure to properly safeguard their personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs have all alleged similar causes of action against Defendants, including negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. After review of the pleadings, motion, and accompanying brief and attachments, the Court finds consolidation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) is warranted. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach, contain overlapping causes of action, and seek to represent the same class of individuals--of which there are potentially hundreds of thousands. The Plaintiffs also all allege the Defendants breached the same or similar common law and statutory duties, thereby, allowing the data breach to occur, and also seek the same type of remedies and compensation. Thus, all of the actions will involve common questions of law and fact. As such, Judge Nelson opines that consolidation will promote judicial efficiency, conserve the parties' and Court's resources, and will avoid duplicative discovery and Court rulings. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have proposed jointly filing a consolidated complaint in the first-filed action, McLean v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24CV230; thereafter, the Plaintiffs propose administratively closing the remaining member cases and proceeding under the McLean action only, which will further streamline this litigation. Under the circumstances, the Court finds the Plaintiffs' motion should be granted, and the cases should be consolidated for all purposes. The Plaintiffs also move for appointment of interim co-lead counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). The Plaintiffs request Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA; M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., be appointed as interim co-lead counsel. After review of the Rule 23(g)(3) factors, the Court finds the consolidated actions would benefit from interim class counsel for efficient case management. As demonstrated by the brief and accompanying resumes, proposed interim co-lead counsel are extremely experienced and qualified attorneys, and each has knowledge of the applicable law, experience in managing and prosecuting complex class action cases involving data security and privacy, notable successes against large corporate defendants, and resources they are willing to expend to litigate this case. Judge Nelson points out that no party has objected to the appointment of these attorneys as interim co-lead class counsel. For these reasons, the Court finds the appointment of the proposed interim co-lead counsel is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions. The cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 8:24CV230 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 8:24CV231, 8:24CV233, 8:24CV234, 8:24CV235, and 8:24CV252 as "Member Cases." The Court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, until a consolidated complaint is filed in the Lead Case, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below) in the Lead Case, and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and any member cases. When filing such documents, counsel may either file the document separately in each case, or file the document in the Lead Case and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. If a party believes that a document in addition to those described above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. Judge Nelson directs the Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to file a Consolidated Complaint in the Lead Case on or before Sept. 9, 2024. The deadline for the Defendants to file an answer or other responsive pleading is extended to 45-days after the Plaintiffs file a Consolidated Complaint. If the Defendants file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 as a responsive pleading, the Plaintiffs will have 30-days to file a brief in opposition. Thereafter, the Defendants may have 21-days to file a brief in reply. For subsequently filed or transferred cases arising out of the same subject matter at issue in the Consolidated Lead Case, attorneys of record must notify the court that the case is related to this action pursuant to NEGenR. 1.4(A). The Clerk of Court will docket a copy of this order in any subsequently filed or transferred related case. If any party objects to consolidation or otherwise wishes to seek alternative relief in a subsequently filed case, the objecting party must file a motion within 14-days of the party's first appearance in the case explaining the basis for its motion and its requested relief. The Court further rules that the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) is granted. Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA; M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., are appointed as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of the Plaintiffs and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of the Plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 25, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/edzvxs52 from PacerMonitor.com. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Coit Suit Consolidated to Data Breach Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Coit v. Signature Performance, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-00252-BCB-MDN (D. Neb.). In Re Signature Performance Data Breach Litigation, Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska issued an order for consolidation and appointment of co-lead interim class counsel. The matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel filed by the Plaintiffs in each of these related cases: Case Nos. 8:24CV230, 8:24CV231, 8:24CV233, 8:24CV234, 8:24CV235, and 8:24CV252, excluding Coit v. Signature Performance, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:24CV252, which complaint was filed four days after the instant motion was filed. The Plaintiffs seek consolidation of the related cases, as well as any subsequently filed or transferred related actions, for all purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They further request appointment of interim co-lead class counsel to collectively lead this litigation. Finally, the motion seeks to stay all case deadlines in the related actions during the pendency of the motion, including deadlines for the Defendants to respond to the respective complaints, and proposes deadlines for filing and responding to a consolidated complaint. The Court filed a copy of the motion and supporting documents in each of the cases, and ordered that any responses to the motion was due on July 24, 2024. No party filed any opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff Coit has filed a statement of support in support of the motion. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach of the Defendants' computer network by a third-party cybercriminal on or about Jan. 17 and 18, 2024, which resulted in the unauthorized access of sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, dates of services, medical record/case numbers, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, health insurance provider names, health insurance individual policy numbers and/or treatment costs, of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The Defendants began providing affected individuals with notice of the breach in June 2024. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are individuals affected by the data breach, and have brought claims arising out of the Defendants' failure to properly safeguard their personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs have all alleged similar causes of action against Defendants, including negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. After review of the pleadings, motion, and accompanying brief and attachments, the Court finds consolidation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) is warranted. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach, contain overlapping causes of action, and seek to represent the same class of individuals--of which there are potentially hundreds of thousands. The Plaintiffs also all allege the Defendants breached the same or similar common law and statutory duties, thereby, allowing the data breach to occur, and also seek the same type of remedies and compensation. Thus, all of the actions will involve common questions of law and fact. As such, Judge Nelson opines that consolidation will promote judicial efficiency, conserve the parties' and Court's resources, and will avoid duplicative discovery and Court rulings. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have proposed jointly filing a consolidated complaint in the first-filed action, McLean v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24CV230; thereafter, the Plaintiffs propose administratively closing the remaining member cases and proceeding under the McLean action only, which will further streamline this litigation. Under the circumstances, the Court finds the Plaintiffs' motion should be granted, and the cases should be consolidated for all purposes. The Plaintiffs also move for appointment of interim co-lead counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). The Plaintiffs request Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA; M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., be appointed as interim co-lead counsel. After review of the Rule 23(g)(3) factors, the Court finds the consolidated actions would benefit from interim class counsel for efficient case management. As demonstrated by the brief and accompanying resumes, proposed interim co-lead counsel are extremely experienced and qualified attorneys, and each has knowledge of the applicable law, experience in managing and prosecuting complex class action cases involving data security and privacy, notable successes against large corporate defendants, and resources they are willing to expend to litigate this case. Judge Nelson points out that no party has objected to the appointment of these attorneys as interim co-lead class counsel. For these reasons, the Court finds the appointment of the proposed interim co-lead counsel is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions. The cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 8:24CV230 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 8:24CV231, 8:24CV233, 8:24CV234, 8:24CV235, and 8:24CV252 as "Member Cases." The Court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, until a consolidated complaint is filed in the Lead Case, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below) in the Lead Case, and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and any member cases. When filing such documents, counsel may either file the document separately in each case, or file the document in the Lead Case and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. If a party believes that a document in addition to those described above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. Judge Nelson directs the Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to file a Consolidated Complaint in the Lead Case on or before Sept. 9, 2024. The deadline for the Defendants to file an answer or other responsive pleading is extended to 45-days after the Plaintiffs file a Consolidated Complaint. If the Defendants file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 as a responsive pleading, the Plaintiffs will have 30-days to file a brief in opposition. Thereafter, the Defendants may have 21-days to file a brief in reply. For subsequently filed or transferred cases arising out of the same subject matter at issue in the Consolidated Lead Case, attorneys of record must notify the court that the case is related to this action pursuant to NEGenR. 1.4(A). The Clerk of Court will docket a copy of this order in any subsequently filed or transferred related case. If any party objects to consolidation or otherwise wishes to seek alternative relief in a subsequently filed case, the objecting party must file a motion within 14-days of the party's first appearance in the case explaining the basis for its motion and its requested relief. The Court further rules that the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) is granted. Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA; M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., are appointed as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of the Plaintiffs and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of the Plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 25, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5p3vv5u from PacerMonitor.com. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Enriquez Consolidated to Data Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Enriquez v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00235-BCB-MDN (D. Neb.). In Re Signature Performance Data Breach Litigation, Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska issued an order for consolidation and appointment of co-lead interim class counsel. The matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel filed by the Plaintiffs in each of these related cases: Case Nos. 8:24CV230, 8:24CV231, 8:24CV233, 8:24CV234, 8:24CV235, and 8:24CV252, excluding Coit v. Signature Performance, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:24CV252, which complaint was filed four days after the instant motion was filed. The Plaintiffs seek consolidation of the related cases, as well as any subsequently filed or transferred related actions, for all purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They further request appointment of interim co-lead class counsel to collectively lead this litigation. Finally, the motion seeks to stay all case deadlines in the related actions during the pendency of the motion, including deadlines for the Defendants to respond to the respective complaints, and proposes deadlines for filing and responding to a consolidated complaint. The Court filed a copy of the motion and supporting documents in each of the cases, and ordered that any responses to the motion was due on July 24, 2024. No party filed any opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff Coit has filed a statement of support in support of the motion. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach of the Defendants' computer network by a third-party cybercriminal on or about Jan. 17 and 18, 2024, which resulted in the unauthorized access of sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, dates of services, medical record/case numbers, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, health insurance provider names, health insurance individual policy numbers and/or treatment costs, of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The Defendants began providing affected individuals with notice of the breach in June 2024. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are individuals affected by the data breach, and have brought claims arising out of the Defendants' failure to properly safeguard their personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs have all alleged similar causes of action against Defendants, including negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. After review of the pleadings, motion, and accompanying brief and attachments, the Court finds consolidation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) is warranted. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach, contain overlapping causes of action, and seek to represent the same class of individuals--of which there are potentially hundreds of thousands. The Plaintiffs also all allege the Defendants breached the same or similar common law and statutory duties, thereby, allowing the data breach to occur, and also seek the same type of remedies and compensation. Thus, all of the actions will involve common questions of law and fact. As such, Judge Nelson opines that consolidation will promote judicial efficiency, conserve the parties' and Court's resources, and will avoid duplicative discovery and Court rulings. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have proposed jointly filing a consolidated complaint in the first-filed action, McLean v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24CV230; thereafter, the Plaintiffs propose administratively closing the remaining member cases and proceeding under the McLean action only, which will further streamline this litigation. Under the circumstances, the Court finds the Plaintiffs' motion should be granted, and the cases should be consolidated for all purposes. The Plaintiffs also move for appointment of interim co-lead counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). The Plaintiffs request Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA; M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., be appointed as interim co-lead counsel. After review of the Rule 23(g)(3) factors, the Court finds the consolidated actions would benefit from interim class counsel for efficient case management. As demonstrated by the brief and accompanying resumes, proposed interim co-lead counsel are extremely experienced and qualified attorneys, and each has knowledge of the applicable law, experience in managing and prosecuting complex class action cases involving data security and privacy, notable successes against large corporate defendants, and resources they are willing to expend to litigate this case. Judge Nelson points out that no party has objected to the appointment of these attorneys as interim co-lead class counsel. For these reasons, the Court finds the appointment of the proposed interim co-lead counsel is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions. The cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 8:24CV230 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 8:24CV231, 8:24CV233, 8:24CV234, 8:24CV235, and 8:24CV252 as "Member Cases." The Court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, until a consolidated complaint is filed in the Lead Case, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below) in the Lead Case, and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and any member cases. When filing such documents, counsel may either file the document separately in each case, or file the document in the Lead Case and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. If a party believes that a document in addition to those described above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. Judge Nelson directs the Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to file a Consolidated Complaint in the Lead Case on or before Sept. 9, 2024. The deadline for the Defendants to file an answer or other responsive pleading is extended to 45-days after the Plaintiffs file a Consolidated Complaint. If the Defendants file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 as a responsive pleading, the Plaintiffs will have 30-days to file a brief in opposition. Thereafter, the Defendants may have 21-days to file a brief in reply. For subsequently filed or transferred cases arising out of the same subject matter at issue in the Consolidated Lead Case, attorneys of record must notify the court that the case is related to this action pursuant to NEGenR. 1.4(A). The Clerk of Court will docket a copy of this order in any subsequently filed or transferred related case. If any party objects to consolidation or otherwise wishes to seek alternative relief in a subsequently filed case, the objecting party must file a motion within 14-days of the party's first appearance in the case explaining the basis for its motion and its requested relief. The Court further rules that the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) is granted. Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA; M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., are appointed as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of the Plaintiffs and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of the Plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 25, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7pyh3r from PacerMonitor.com. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Jacobs Consolidated to Data Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Jacobs, et al. v. Signature Performance, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-00234-BCB-MDN (D. Neb.). In Re Signature Performance Data Breach Litigation, Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska issued an order for consolidation and appointment of co-lead interim class counsel. The matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel filed by the Plaintiffs in each of these related cases: Case Nos. 8:24CV230, 8:24CV231, 8:24CV233, 8:24CV234, 8:24CV235, and 8:24CV252, excluding Coit v. Signature Performance, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:24CV252, which complaint was filed four days after the instant motion was filed. The Plaintiffs seek consolidation of the related cases, as well as any subsequently filed or transferred related actions, for all purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They further request appointment of interim co-lead class counsel to collectively lead this litigation. Finally, the motion seeks to stay all case deadlines in the related actions during the pendency of the motion, including deadlines for the Defendants to respond to the respective complaints, and proposes deadlines for filing and responding to a consolidated complaint. The Court filed a copy of the motion and supporting documents in each of the cases, and ordered that any responses to the motion was due on July 24, 2024. No party filed any opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff Coit has filed a statement of support in support of the motion. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach of the Defendants' computer network by a third-party cybercriminal on or about Jan. 17 and 18, 2024, which resulted in the unauthorized access of sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, dates of services, medical record/case numbers, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, health insurance provider names, health insurance individual policy numbers and/or treatment costs, of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The Defendants began providing affected individuals with notice of the breach in June 2024. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are individuals affected by the data breach, and have brought claims arising out of the Defendants' failure to properly safeguard their personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs have all alleged similar causes of action against Defendants, including negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. After review of the pleadings, motion, and accompanying brief and attachments, the Court finds consolidation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) is warranted. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach, contain overlapping causes of action, and seek to represent the same class of individuals--of which there are potentially hundreds of thousands. The Plaintiffs also all allege the Defendants breached the same or similar common law and statutory duties, thereby, allowing the data breach to occur, and also seek the same type of remedies and compensation. Thus, all of the actions will involve common questions of law and fact. As such, Judge Nelson opines that consolidation will promote judicial efficiency, conserve the parties' and Court's resources, and will avoid duplicative discovery and Court rulings. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have proposed jointly filing a consolidated complaint in the first-filed action, McLean v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24CV230; thereafter, the Plaintiffs propose administratively closing the remaining member cases and proceeding under the McLean action only, which will further streamline this litigation. Under the circumstances, the Court finds the Plaintiffs' motion should be granted, and the cases should be consolidated for all purposes. The Plaintiffs also move for appointment of interim co-lead counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). The Plaintiffs request Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA; M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., be appointed as interim co-lead counsel. After review of the Rule 23(g)(3) factors, the Court finds the consolidated actions would benefit from interim class counsel for efficient case management. As demonstrated by the brief and accompanying resumes, proposed interim co-lead counsel are extremely experienced and qualified attorneys, and each has knowledge of the applicable law, experience in managing and prosecuting complex class action cases involving data security and privacy, notable successes against large corporate defendants, and resources they are willing to expend to litigate this case. Judge Nelson points out that no party has objected to the appointment of these attorneys as interim co-lead class counsel. For these reasons, the Court finds the appointment of the proposed interim co-lead counsel is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions. The cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 8:24CV230 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 8:24CV231, 8:24CV233, 8:24CV234, 8:24CV235, and 8:24CV252 as "Member Cases." The Court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, until a consolidated complaint is filed in the Lead Case, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below) in the Lead Case, and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and any member cases. When filing such documents, counsel may either file the document separately in each case, or file the document in the Lead Case and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. If a party believes that a document in addition to those described above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. Judge Nelson directs the Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to file a Consolidated Complaint in the Lead Case on or before Sept. 9, 2024. The deadline for the Defendants to file an answer or other responsive pleading is extended to 45-days after the Plaintiffs file a Consolidated Complaint. If the Defendants file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 as a responsive pleading, the Plaintiffs will have 30-days to file a brief in opposition. Thereafter, the Defendants may have 21-days to file a brief in reply. For subsequently filed or transferred cases arising out of the same subject matter at issue in the Consolidated Lead Case, attorneys of record must notify the court that the case is related to this action pursuant to NEGenR. 1.4(A). The Clerk of Court will docket a copy of this order in any subsequently filed or transferred related case. If any party objects to consolidation or otherwise wishes to seek alternative relief in a subsequently filed case, the objecting party must file a motion within 14-days of the party's first appearance in the case explaining the basis for its motion and its requested relief. The Court further rules that the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) is granted. Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA; M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., are appointed as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of the Plaintiffs and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of the Plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 25, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3k27ns from PacerMonitor.com. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: McLean Consolidated to Data Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled McLean v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00230-BCB-MDN (D. Neb.). In Re Signature Performance Data Breach Litigation, Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska issued an order for consolidation and appointment of co-lead interim class counsel. The matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel filed by the Plaintiffs in each of these related cases: Case Nos. 8:24CV230, 8:24CV231, 8:24CV233, 8:24CV234, 8:24CV235, and 8:24CV252, excluding Coit v. Signature Performance, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:24CV252, which complaint was filed four days after the instant motion was filed. The Plaintiffs seek consolidation of the related cases, as well as any subsequently filed or transferred related actions, for all purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They further request appointment of interim co-lead class counsel to collectively lead this litigation. Finally, the motion seeks to stay all case deadlines in the related actions during the pendency of the motion, including deadlines for the Defendants to respond to the respective complaints, and proposes deadlines for filing and responding to a consolidated complaint. The Court filed a copy of the motion and supporting documents in each of the cases, and ordered that any responses to the motion was due on July 24, 2024. No party filed any opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff Coit has filed a statement of support in support of the motion. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach of the Defendants' computer network by a third-party cybercriminal on or about Jan. 17 and 18, 2024, which resulted in the unauthorized access of sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, dates of services, medical record/case numbers, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, health insurance provider names, health insurance individual policy numbers and/or treatment costs, of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The Defendants began providing affected individuals with notice of the breach in June 2024. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are individuals affected by the data breach, and have brought claims arising out of the Defendants' failure to properly safeguard their personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs have all alleged similar causes of action against Defendants, including negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. After review of the pleadings, motion, and accompanying brief and attachments, the Court finds consolidation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) is warranted. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach, contain overlapping causes of action, and seek to represent the same class of individuals--of which there are potentially hundreds of thousands. The Plaintiffs also all allege the Defendants breached the same or similar common law and statutory duties, thereby, allowing the data breach to occur, and also seek the same type of remedies and compensation. Thus, all of the actions will involve common questions of law and fact. As such, Judge Nelson opines that consolidation will promote judicial efficiency, conserve the parties' and Court's resources, and will avoid duplicative discovery and Court rulings. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have proposed jointly filing a consolidated complaint in the first-filed action, McLean v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24CV230; thereafter, the Plaintiffs propose administratively closing the remaining member cases and proceeding under the McLean action only, which will further streamline this litigation. Under the circumstances, the Court finds the Plaintiffs' motion should be granted, and the cases should be consolidated for all purposes. The Plaintiffs also move for appointment of interim co-lead counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). The Plaintiffs request Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA; M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., be appointed as interim co-lead counsel. After review of the Rule 23(g)(3) factors, the Court finds the consolidated actions would benefit from interim class counsel for efficient case management. As demonstrated by the brief and accompanying resumes, proposed interim co-lead counsel are extremely experienced and qualified attorneys, and each has knowledge of the applicable law, experience in managing and prosecuting complex class action cases involving data security and privacy, notable successes against large corporate defendants, and resources they are willing to expend to litigate this case. Judge Nelson points out that no party has objected to the appointment of these attorneys as interim co-lead class counsel. For these reasons, the Court finds the appointment of the proposed interim co-lead counsel is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions. The cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 8:24CV230 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 8:24CV231, 8:24CV233, 8:24CV234, 8:24CV235, and 8:24CV252 as "Member Cases." The Court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, until a consolidated complaint is filed in the Lead Case, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below) in the Lead Case, and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and any member cases. When filing such documents, counsel may either file the document separately in each case, or file the document in the Lead Case and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. If a party believes that a document in addition to those described above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. Judge Nelson directs the Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to file a Consolidated Complaint in the Lead Case on or before Sept. 9, 2024. The deadline for the Defendants to file an answer or other responsive pleading is extended to 45-days after the Plaintiffs file a Consolidated Complaint. If the Defendants file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 as a responsive pleading, the Plaintiffs will have 30-days to file a brief in opposition. Thereafter, the Defendants may have 21-days to file a brief in reply. For subsequently filed or transferred cases arising out of the same subject matter at issue in the Consolidated Lead Case, attorneys of record must notify the court that the case is related to this action pursuant to NEGenR. 1.4(A). The Clerk of Court will docket a copy of this order in any subsequently filed or transferred related case. If any party objects to consolidation or otherwise wishes to seek alternative relief in a subsequently filed case, the objecting party must file a motion within 14-days of the party's first appearance in the case explaining the basis for its motion and its requested relief. The Court further rules that the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) is granted. Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA; M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., are appointed as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of the Plaintiffs and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of the Plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 25, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mryx3c5f from PacerMonitor.com. SIGNATURE PERFORMANCE: Reese Suit Consolidated to Data Breach Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled Reese v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00233-BCB-MDN (D. Neb.). In Re Signature Performance Data Breach Litigation, Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska issued an order for consolidation and appointment of co-lead interim class counsel. The matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel filed by the Plaintiffs in each of these related cases: Case Nos. 8:24CV230, 8:24CV231, 8:24CV233, 8:24CV234, 8:24CV235, and 8:24CV252, excluding Coit v. Signature Performance, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:24CV252, which complaint was filed four days after the instant motion was filed. The Plaintiffs seek consolidation of the related cases, as well as any subsequently filed or transferred related actions, for all purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They further request appointment of interim co-lead class counsel to collectively lead this litigation. Finally, the motion seeks to stay all case deadlines in the related actions during the pendency of the motion, including deadlines for the Defendants to respond to the respective complaints, and proposes deadlines for filing and responding to a consolidated complaint. The Court filed a copy of the motion and supporting documents in each of the cases, and ordered that any responses to the motion was due on July 24, 2024. No party filed any opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff Coit has filed a statement of support in support of the motion. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach of the Defendants' computer network by a third-party cybercriminal on or about Jan. 17 and 18, 2024, which resulted in the unauthorized access of sensitive personal information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, provider names, dates of services, medical record/case numbers, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, health insurance provider names, health insurance individual policy numbers and/or treatment costs, of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The Defendants began providing affected individuals with notice of the breach in June 2024. The Plaintiffs and putative class members are individuals affected by the data breach, and have brought claims arising out of the Defendants' failure to properly safeguard their personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs have all alleged similar causes of action against Defendants, including negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. After review of the pleadings, motion, and accompanying brief and attachments, the Court finds consolidation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) is warranted. The Plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same data breach, contain overlapping causes of action, and seek to represent the same class of individuals--of which there are potentially hundreds of thousands. The Plaintiffs also all allege the Defendants breached the same or similar common law and statutory duties, thereby, allowing the data breach to occur, and also seek the same type of remedies and compensation. Thus, all of the actions will involve common questions of law and fact. As such, Judge Nelson opines that consolidation will promote judicial efficiency, conserve the parties' and Court's resources, and will avoid duplicative discovery and Court rulings. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have proposed jointly filing a consolidated complaint in the first-filed action, McLean v. Signature Performance, Inc., Case No. 8:24CV230; thereafter, the Plaintiffs propose administratively closing the remaining member cases and proceeding under the McLean action only, which will further streamline this litigation. Under the circumstances, the Court finds the Plaintiffs' motion should be granted, and the cases should be consolidated for all purposes. The Plaintiffs also move for appointment of interim co-lead counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). The Plaintiffs request Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA; M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., be appointed as interim co-lead counsel. After review of the Rule 23(g)(3) factors, the Court finds the consolidated actions would benefit from interim class counsel for efficient case management. As demonstrated by the brief and accompanying resumes, proposed interim co-lead counsel are extremely experienced and qualified attorneys, and each has knowledge of the applicable law, experience in managing and prosecuting complex class action cases involving data security and privacy, notable successes against large corporate defendants, and resources they are willing to expend to litigate this case. Judge Nelson points out that no party has objected to the appointment of these attorneys as interim co-lead class counsel. For these reasons, the Court finds the appointment of the proposed interim co-lead counsel is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Related Actions. The cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designates Case No. 8:24CV230 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 8:24CV231, 8:24CV233, 8:24CV234, 8:24CV235, and 8:24CV252 as "Member Cases." The Court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, until a consolidated complaint is filed in the Lead Case, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below) in the Lead Case, and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and any member cases. When filing such documents, counsel may either file the document separately in each case, or file the document in the Lead Case and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. If a party believes that a document in addition to those described above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. Judge Nelson directs the Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to file a Consolidated Complaint in the Lead Case on or before Sept. 9, 2024. The deadline for the Defendants to file an answer or other responsive pleading is extended to 45-days after the Plaintiffs file a Consolidated Complaint. If the Defendants file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 as a responsive pleading, the Plaintiffs will have 30-days to file a brief in opposition. Thereafter, the Defendants may have 21-days to file a brief in reply. For subsequently filed or transferred cases arising out of the same subject matter at issue in the Consolidated Lead Case, attorneys of record must notify the court that the case is related to this action pursuant to NEGenR. 1.4(A). The Clerk of Court will docket a copy of this order in any subsequently filed or transferred related case. If any party objects to consolidation or otherwise wishes to seek alternative relief in a subsequently filed case, the objecting party must file a motion within 14-days of the party's first appearance in the case explaining the basis for its motion and its requested relief. The Court further rules that the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) is granted. Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA; M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Corporation; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., are appointed as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of the Plaintiffs and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of the Plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 25, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ndfjbnha from PacerMonitor.com. SIMPLE SICHUAN: Court Awards $35K Judgment to Fajardo and Morales ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Nelson Stephen Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rules that the Plaintiffs have judgment in the amount of $35,000 against the Defendants in the lawsuit titled Katherine Fajardo and Victor Morales, Plaintiffs v. Simple Sichuan Inc., et al., Case No. 7:23-cv-05304-NSR (S.D.N.Y.). On Jan. 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of acceptance of offer of judgment solely on their individual claims pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court orders and decrees that the Plaintiffs, KATHERINE FAJARDO, and VICTOR MORALES, have judgment against Defendants SIMPLE SICHUAN INC. (D/B/A O MANDARIN), PETER LIU, JIANG ZHENG AKA KEVIN ZHENG, and DANIEL NEGRIN, jointly and severally, in the amount of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($35,000), which is inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs. The Court further notes that the Plaintiffs submitted a letter to the Court dated Jan. 11, 2024, stating their intent to discontinue their class action claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' class action claims are dismissed. A copy of the Court's Judgment dated July 25, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydhy4tks from PacerMonitor.com. SNOWFLAKE INC: Schwartz Files Suit in D. Montana ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowflake, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Amanda Schwartz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snowflake, Inc., Advance Stores Company, Incorporated, Case No. 2:24-cv-00074-BMM (D. Mont., Aug. 1, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Snowflake Inc. -- https://www.snowflake.com/en/ -- is an American cloud computing–based data cloud company based in Bozeman, Montana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Phone: (406) 839-9091 Fax: (406) 839-9092 Email: john@lawmontana.com SNOWFLAKE INC: Weaver Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN WEAVER and JENNIFER CARTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SNOWFLAKE, INC. and AT&T INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01915-K (N.D. Tex., July 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated AT&T current and former customers' records of phone numbers from call and text communications from hackers. On or about July 12, 2024, AT&T filed official notice of a hacking incident with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission. On or about the same time, AT&T also sent out data breach letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. As evidenced by the data breach, the private information contained in the network of Snowflake was not encrypted. Had the information been properly encrypted, the data thieves would have exfiltrated only unintelligible data, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed and/or compromised during the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and declaratory judgment. Snowflake, Inc. is a cloud storage service used by 9,437 customers, which are often large global companies which, in addition to AT&T, include Adobe, Kraft Heinz, Mastercard, HP, Nielsen, Novartis, PepsiCo, Siemens, and NBC Universal.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngas Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brian J. Lyngas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Solstice Benefits, Inc., Case No. 22-cv-10830 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 2, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:24-mc-00016-JSM-AEP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Quash Subpoenas. Solstice Benefits -- https://www.solsticebenefits.com/ -- offers affordable dental and vision plans for individuals and families.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey Aaron Backman, Esq. Roy Taub, Esq. Greenspoon Marder, PA - Corporate 200 E. Broward Blvd., Ste. 1800 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 491-1120 Fax: (407) 771-9264 Email: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com roy.taub@gmlaw.com SPD SWISS: Saedi Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII & PHI ----------------------------------------------------------- Roz Saedi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPD SWISS PRECISION DIAGNOSTICS GMBH d/b/a CLEARBLUE, PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. and ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 2:24-cv-06525 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2024), is brought to address the Defendants' unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively referred to as "Private Information") to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook") and Google, Inc., without consent, through the use of tracking software that is embedded in Defendants' website for Clearblue products. In order to market and sell their products, Defendants own and control https://www.clearblue.com/ ("Defendants' Website" or the "Website"), which they encourage customers to use for reviewing and purchasing pregnancy, fertility and ovulation test kits. Unbeknownst to customers, Defendants installed third-party tracking technologies such as the Meta Pixel ("Facebook Pixel" or "Pixel"), as well as Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager ("Tracking Tools"), onto the Website. These Tracking Tools, such as pixels, web beacons, tags, and/or cookies, track and collect communications with the Defendants via the Website and surreptitiously force the user's web browser to send those communications to undisclosed third parties, such as Facebook and/or Google. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: invasion of privacy; lack of trust in communicating with health providers online; emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of Private Information to third parties, loss of benefit of the bargain; diminution of value of their Private Information; statutory damages and continued and ongoing risk to their Private Information. The Plaintiff therefore seeks on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and therefore assert the following statutory and common law claims against Defendants: Violation of Electronic Communications Privacy Act; Unauthorized Interception, Use and Disclosure; Violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act; Invasion of Privacy; and Unjust Enrichment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff used the Website to submit information related to their past, present, or future health conditions, including reviewing and purchasing pregnancy, fertility and ovulation test kits. SPD is a Swiss company that produces a variety of advanced consumer diagnostic products, under several different brands, including Clearblue branded pregnancy testing kits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Langley, Esq. Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (312) 576-3024 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com elena@almeidalawgroup.com SPECIALIZED LOAN: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY MILLS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated consumers, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00063-MSN-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff and the Defendant ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion for entry of agreed order on the Plaintiff's motion to extend deadlines for expert disclosures and class certification. Specialized Loan operates as a financial company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=38rBW9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. J. Patrick McNichol Matthew Rosendahl KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com The Defendant is represented by: Jason R. Hodge, Esq. Kevin P. Polansky, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 1021 East Cary Street, Suite 2120 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 533-3891 Facsimile: (804) 616-4129 E-mail: jason.hodge@nelsonmullins.com kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Otey Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sterling Infosystems Incorporated. The case is styled as Shanae Otey, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals v. Sterling Infosystems Incorporated, Case No. 3:24-cv-00543-JAG (in E.D. Va., July 31, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Sterling Infosystems Inc, doing business as Sterling -- https://www.sterlingcheck.com/ -- provides human resource services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. James Patrick McNichol, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7570 Fax: (703) 591-9285 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com T-MOBILE USA: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; Barahona Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendant's Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration in the lawsuit entitled CHERYL BARAHONA and KUBA OSTACHIEWCZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:08-cv-01631-RSM (W.D. Wash.). T-Mobile points to the arbitration clause in the June 2008 update to the Terms & Conditions ("T&Cs") to which Plaintiffs Ms. Barahona and Mr. Ostachiewcz agreed to, and which was introduced into the record by T-Mobile. The Plaintiffs do not dispute they technically agreed to T-Mobile's updated T&Cs, which included the arbitration provision. Instead, they argue that they were not provided adequate notice and that the arbitration provision, including the class action waiver, is unconscionable and unenforceable. Judge Martinez says it is important to note that California law controls here since the Plaintiffs' billing addresses are in California. If the Plaintiffs contend the arbitration agreement is unenforceable, they bear the burden of proving unconscionability. The Supreme Court has clearly explained that an arbitration provision that includes a waiver of class action rights is enforceable, Judge Martinez explains, citing AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011). Additionally, here, the Court has reviewed the arbitration clause and finds it to be conspicuous and clear. It encompasses the dispute between the Plaintiffs and T-Mobile and the Plaintiffs did not trigger the opt-out provision included in the T&Cs. In fact, Judge Martinez says, starting with the 2008 T&Cs, every version of the T-Mobile T&Cs has contained an opt-out provision, and despite numerous occasions to do so, the Plaintiffs have never taken an action to opt out. The Plaintiffs refer to the T&Cs update process in their Complaint, but at the same time allege they did not have sufficient notice of the material changes in the T&Cs until well after filing the lawsuit. Thus, Judge Martinez opines, the Plaintiffs' assertion that they were not given adequate notice of the arbitration provision, including the class action waiver that was part of the June 2008 update to the T&Cs, falls flat. Accordingly, the Court will grant T-Mobile's requested relief, stay this case, and compel the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against T-Mobile. Having considered the briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court grants T-Mobile's Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration. This case is stayed, and the Plaintiffs and T-Mobile are directed to arbitrate pursuant to the arbitration clause in effect between them. The parties are directed to file a joint status report 90 days after the filing of this Order and every 90 days thereafter until the arbitration is resolved. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 25, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4kyj2vvf from PacerMonitor.com. TECH MAHINDRA: Kent Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled STEPHEN KENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS) INC., a foreign profit corporation; TECH MAHINDRA TECHNOLOGIES INC., a foreign profit corporation; TECH MAHINDRA NETWORK SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 24-2-14896-5 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on August 1, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01168 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to disclose the wage scale or salary range to be offered in their job postings. Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc. is an information technology and services company based in Plano, Texas. Tech Mahindra Technologies Inc. is an information technology and services company headquartered in India. Tech Mahindra Network Services International, Inc. is a provider of wireless telecommunication services based in Plano, Texas. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam S. Belzberg, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 386-7516 Facsimile: (206) 386-7500 Email: adam.belzberg@stoel.com - and - Kenneth W. Gage, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 318-6046 Facsimile: (212) 230-7646 Email: kennethgage@paulhastings.com - and - Zara H. Shore, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M. Street NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 551-1727 Facsimile: (202) 551-0227 Email: zarashore@paulhastings.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Faces Howitt Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN JEFFREY HOWITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TICKETMASTER, LLC, and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06530 (C.D. Cal., August 1, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored on their network systems following a data breach between April 2, 2024, and May 18, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Ticketmaster, LLC is a ticket management company with its principal place of business in Hollywood, California. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. is an American multinational entertainment company with its principal place of business in Beverly Hills, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Tiara Avaness, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, PC 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 Facsimile: (845) 356-4335 Email: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com - and - Lynda J. Grant, Esq. THEGRANTLAWFIRM, PLLC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 292-4441 Facsimile: (212) 292-4442 Email: lgrant@grantfirm.com TRANS UNION: Bid to Strike Supplemental Exhibit Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Marston entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to strike Trans Union's supplemental Exhibit. -- The Court strikes Wodzinski's expert report and testimony as inadmissible under the standard outlined in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. -- Wodzinski may, however, testify as a factual witness as to her knowledge of Trans Union's subject selection algorithms and processes. Trans Union's supplemental exhibit will not be considered as a supplement to Wodzinski's report but is permitted for any admissible, factual evidence it may contain. While Trans Union's counsel sought to confirm Wodzinski's speculations, this is not a proper supplement of Wodzinski's report. At most, it is merely additional evidence relevant to class certification. Even if the Court had not struck Wodzinski as an expert witness, this exhibit would not be permitted as a supplement to her report. But to the extent this exhibit contains facts relevant for class certification, the Court will consider it. The Plaintiff, 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 now seeks to certify a single class of individuals seeking relief under section 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 January 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." Trans Union is a consumer reporting agency that gathers information on credit history and activity, among other things, to generate consumer credit reports. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GUr8uV at no extra charge.[CC] TRANS UNION: Brooks Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge Marston entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification: "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." The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, claims Trans Union violated section 1681e(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") when it sold third party creditors consumer credit reports that erroneously showed the consumers had filed for bankruptcy. In January 2022, Plaintiff brought a putative class action complaint against Trans Union, which he amended the following month. The amended complaint purported to bring claims under the FCRA and its California analogue. Trans Union is a consumer reporting agency that gathers information on credit history and activity, among other things, to generate consumer credit reports. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Grhy6P at no extra charge.[CC] TRANS UNION: Saucedo Submits Exhibit to Ram Declaration ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIANO SAUCEDO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04891-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff submits Exhibit A to the declaration of Michael Ram in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Trans Union operates as a global information and insights company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ukpWUn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Dan Keller, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com DKeller@TheMMLawFirm.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. Shelby Serig, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 711 Van Ness Ave., Ste. 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-7155 Facsimile: (415) 358-2037 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com sserig@forthepeople.com TRANSUNION RENTAL: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-10678-GW-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: -- extending the deadline for the filing of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and -- continuing the hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to Feb. 24, 2025, with the parties to agree to a briefing schedule as long as the Reply is filed by Feb. 10, 2025. The parties have extensively engaged in this discovery process and are cooperatively determining not only the parameters of the documents to be located and produced, but also how long it may take to locate and produce that information using the agreed-upon parameters. Despite the parties' best efforts, it is the genuine belief of the parties this extra time is needed so that TURSS can gather and produce the available and relevant class-related information sought by the Plaintiff, so that he can file his Rule 23 Motion for Class Certification. 14. No party will be prejudiced by this Court granting this Stipulation as all parties jointly seek an extension of the Class Certification filing deadline. The parties believe that allowing this extension will serve the ends of judicial economy as the deadline cannot otherwise realistically be met given the needs of the case. 15. The requested extensions are not sought for the purposes of delay On March 14, 2024, the Parties filed their Joint 26(f) Report. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w2cFDh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com The Defendant is represented by: Albert E. Hartmann, Esq. Brian Patrick Cadigan, Esq. Michael C. O'Neil, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: ahartmann@reedsmith.com bcadigan@reedsmith.com michael.oneil@reedsmith.com UNDER ARMOUR: Advertises False Price Discounts, Williams Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MARK WILLIAMS and PAMELA CHO on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., a Maryland corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01567 (N.D. Cal., July 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated consumers who have purchased one or more of Defendant's Factory outlet items, including apparel, accessories, shoes, and other items, advertised a purported discount from a fictitious higher reference price from Under Armour Factory outlet stores and underarmour.com/en-us/c/outlet/. The Plaintiffs intend to halt the dissemination and perpetuation of this false, misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the false and harmful perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and to obtain redress for those who overpaid for merchandise tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme. The Plaintiffs also seek to permanently enjoin Defendant from engaging in this unlawful conduct. Further, the Plaintiffs seek to obtain all applicable damages, including actual, compensatory, benefit of the bargain, statutory, and punitive; equitable restitution; reasonable costs and attorneys' fees; and other appropriate relief in the amount by which Defendant was unjustly enriched as a result of its sales of merchandise offered a false discount. Under Armour, Inc. is an American sportswear company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. James B. Drimmer, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1234 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com jim@lcllp.com UNITED WATER: Knott Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KNOTT, ET AL., V. UNITED WATER SYSTEM, INC., ET AL Case No. 6:23-cv-00401-DCJ-DJA (W.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the instant lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro.23(b)(3) on behalf of the following class defined as: "All persons who are residential property owners (including members of their household) and lessees of residential property (including members of their household) who at any time between Feb. 16, 2013 and the present received their water from United Water System, Inc., and as a result of receiving water from United Water System, Inc., between Feb. 16, 2013 and the present, have any of the following claims; mental and emotional distress; non- reimbursed personal expenses; nuisance, annoyance, discomfort, and inconvenience; civil trespass; fear of bodily injury, fear of contracting disease, fear of increased risk of contracting diseases; personal property damage/loss as it relates to clothes and/or linens, diminution in value of clothes and/or linens, out of pocket expenses, including expenses for purchasing bottled water/ice, purchase of water/ice dispensers, expenses of installing water filtration systems and related maintenance and filter replacement costs or need for same in the future; loss of use and enjoyment of real property, homes and leased property(ies)." The Plaintiffs further move that MICHAEL CARRUTH, KAREN CARRUTH, CHRISTINA SONNIER, AARON KNOTT, and CHRISTINE OLIVIER be appointed as representatives for the above-defined class. The Plaintiffs further move that the following attorneys be appointed to serve as class counsel for the above-defined class: Gordon J. Schoeffler; Adam R. Credeur; Kenneth W. DeJean; and Natalie M. DeJean. United provides residential and commercial water treatment solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W5XkyJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon J. Schoeffler, Esq. GJS LAW OFFICE 730 Jefferson St. (70501) Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (337) 234-5505 Facsimile: (337) 261-0799 E-mail: gordon@gjslawoffice.com - and - Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq. Adam R. Credeur, Esq. Natalie M. DeJean, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN 417 West University Avenue (70506) Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (337) 235-5294 Facsimile: (337) 235-1095 E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com adam@kwdejean.com natalie@kwdejean.com UTICA COFFEE: Faces Knowles Suit Over Website's Access Barriers --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UTICA COFFEE ROASTING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05857 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 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, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://uticacoffeeroasting.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), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text, 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. Utica Coffee Roasting, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal VON MAUR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Von Maur Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-03093 (D. Minn., Aug. 1, 2024) contends that the Defendant's Website (www.vonmaur.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. As a consequence of the Plaintiff's experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found that the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content – content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by the Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023). Von Maur offers clothing, and accessories for sale including but not limited to, jeans, T-shirts, tops, dresses, socks, shoes, wallets, belts, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com WASHINGTON GROUP: Lawrence Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Washington Group LLC. The case is styled as Gerard Lawrence, as an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself and other similarly situated aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. The Washington Group LLC, Case No. 24STCV19317 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 2, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." The Washington Group is a Real Estate Investment & Property Management Firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd, Ste. 203 Encino, CA 91436-4535 Phone: 818-582-3086 Fax: 818-582-2561 Email: david@spivaklaw.com WELLS FARGO: Smith Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank, et al. The case is styled as Kimara Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-00125-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., Aug. 2, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an American multinational financial services company with a significant global presence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Michael Kaufman, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 222-2222 Email: teamkaufman@poulinwilley.com WESTERN CONFERENCE: Parties Ask Court to Modify Case Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PAIERI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS PENSION TRUST; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS PENSION TRUST, Case No. 2:23-cv-00922-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the case schedule by continuing the deadline for disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony relating to class certification under FRCP 26(a)(2) from Aug. 15, 2024 to Aug. 28, 2024. In light of the complexity of the issues in the Parties' expert reports, and given the need for additional time for the Defendants' expert to review and respond to Plaintiff’s supplemental expert report, the Parties agree that good cause exists to continue the deadline for disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony relating to class certification under FRCP 26(a)(2) from August 15, 2024 to August 28, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time. This extension will not require modification of any other pending case deadlines. The parties agree to exchange rebuttal expert testimony reports no later than 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Aug. 28, 2024. On July 15, 2024, the Court entered the Order, which, among other things, set the following deadlines: (1) disclosure of expert testimony relating to class certification under FRCP 26(a)(2): July 15, 2024; (2) deadline for disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony relating to class certification under FRCP 26(a)(2): August 15, 2024; and (3) deadline to file motions related to class certification discovery: September 12, 2024. The Parties disclosed opening expert testimony relating to class certification under FRCP 26(a)(2) on July 15, 2024. Plaintiff subsequently disclosed a supplemental expert report on July 29, 2024. Western Conference provides plan coverage, participation and vesting, losing and protecting benefits, normal retirement, disability retirement, and other services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oiQ34z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael M. Licata, Esq. Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 206B Seattle, WA 98103 The Defendants are represented by: Clarissa A. Kang, Esq. Angel L. Garrett, Esq. Dylan D. Rudolph, Esq. Joseph C. Faucher, Esq. Brian D. Murray, Esq. TRUCKER HUSS, APC 135 Main Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - Russell J. Reid, Esq. Thomas A. Leahy, Esq. REID, BALLEW, LEAHY & HOLLAND, L.L.P 100 West Harrison Street, N. Tower, #300 Seattle, WA 98119 YAMAHA MOTOR: Faces Murphy Suit Over Website's Access Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05911 (S.D.N.Y., August 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.yamahaboats.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), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. 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. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal YODLEE INC: Must File Revised Opposition to Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIUS CLARK, et al., v. YODLEE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order regarding Yodlee's opposition: -- The Court orders Yodlee to file a revised opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in which it directly includes any citations to evidence or authority upon which it relies by no later than Aug. 7, 2024. -- The Court will only consider Yodlee's revised opposition and will not review evidence contained in stand-alone charts. -- In addition, by Aug. 7, 2024, Yodlee shall file a declaration to identify and authenticate all of its supporting exhibits. -- The Plaintiffs may file a revised reply by no later than Aug. 13, 2024. -- The Court continues the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to Sept. 9, 2024. -- The hearing on the parties' other motions that are currently set for Aug. 12, 2024, will remain on that day. -- In addition, the Court continues the schedule for dispositive motions and the pretrial conference as follows: Opening Summary Judgment Motion: Sept. 17. 2024 Summary Judgment Opposition and Cross Motion: Oct. 8, 2024 Summary Judgment Reply and Opposition Oct. 29, 2024 Cross-Motion: Reply to Summary Judgment Cross-Motion: Nov. 12, 2024 Last Day for Hearing on Dispositive Motions: Dec. 2, 2024 Pre-Trial Conference: Feb. 28, 2025 The undersigned is currently on criminal duty in March 2025 and thus must continue the trial date as well. The available trial dates in April 2025 include April 1, April 8, April 15, and April 29, 2025. The other available trial dates are June 10, 2025, June 17, 2025, and June 24, 2025. By no later than August 8, 2024, the parties shall meet and confer and notify the Court as to their preferred trial date in April or June 2025. IT IS SO ORDERED. Yodlee is a web application software company that provides consumer-permissioned data aggregation, consolidating information from multiple accounts by using open banking. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i1cYpQ at no extra charge.[CC] [*] Court Limits Discovery in TCPA Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Eric J. Troutman of Troutman Amin, LLP, writing for National Law Review, reports that without question the most expensive part of any TCPA class action is class discovery. Where a TCPA defendant has a unique and individual defense applicable to the named class representative, therefore, it almost always makes sense to seek to limit discovery in the case to issues of the named-plaintiff's claim to avoid the expense of class discovery. A ruling bifurcating discovery is fairly common in TCPA cases -- indeed one was just issued in a fraudulent lead case in June. The case did not arise out of a fraudulent lead scenario but out of a claimed failure by a telephone company to maintain an internal DNC list. In Kemen v. Cincinnati Bell, 2024 WL 3633333 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2024) the court decided to limit discovery to just issues of the named Plaintiff's claim: So then, to prevail on her claim as pleaded, Kemen must prove that: (1) she is a residential phone subscriber, (2) who received a call made for telemarketing purposes, (3) from an entity that has not instituted the minimum procedures required by 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(d) (either because the policies did not exist or because their contents fell below the minimum requirements), (4) more than one time in a twelve-month period. The Court determined that issue 3, in particular, was an issue worthy of discovery and a determination before class discovery opened up. Interestingly, that issue is not unique to the named Plaintiff. That means if the defendant loses the merits of the Plaintiff's case it will also lose the issue across the entire class -- which is VERY dangerous, as it highlights a common issue and results in a waiver of one-way intervention protection. Nonetheless, the Defendant sought and earned the order bifurcating discovery to focus on that issue. Helpfully for other TCPA defendants, the Kemen court acknowledged just how expensive class discovery can be in issuing its order: Class discovery is expensive and resource intensive. Babare v. Sigue Corp., No. C20 0894, 2020 WL 8617424, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2020) ("It is well-recognized that discovery in class actions is expensive and asymmetric, with defendants bearing most of the burdens.".); cf. Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, Civ. No. 11-11, 2013 WL 663301, at *5 (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2013) (noting that a TCPA class action involved "the potential for hefty litigation expenses and an extensive use of judicial resources".). And "the need for class discovery may be eliminated if Defendant is able to demonstrate that the Named Plaintiff lacks viable individual claims.". Osidi v. Assurance IQ, LLC, No. 21-cv-11320, 2022 WL 623733, at *2 (D. Mass. Mar. 3, 2022). Especially given the nature of the allegations here, it is reasonable for Cincinnati Bell to seek to test Kemen's personal claims before engaging in extensive class discovery. Very helpful for TCPA litigators to keep in mind. Again, I wouldn't necessarily advise limiting discovery to focus on individual merits where the issues are common across the class -- thoughts and prayers Cincy Bell -- but in instances where a unique defense exists this angle is DEFINITELY something to keep in mind. [GN] [*] Impact of Class Suit Litigation Under Illinois' BIPA Discussed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Ryan T. Garippo, and George J. Schaller, writing for DuaneMorris.com, shared their insights on Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act reforms. Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 2, 2024, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed Senate Bill 2979, which amends the draconian penalties under Sections 15(b) and 15(d) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (the "BIPA"). Senate Bill 2979 and its reformed language can be accessed at https://shorturl.at/JnJpY. For Companies caught in the BIPA's crosshairs, this reform ushers in a welcome reprieve to the former statute's harsh regime of penalties. Background On The BIPA's Former Construction The BIPA statute codifies restrictions against companies that collect biometric information and identifiers. See 740 ILCS 14/1. The rationale for this legislation was that "[b]iometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information" and as such, "[t]he full ramifications of biometric technology are not fully known." Id. Sec. 14/5(c)-(f). Consequently, the BIPA prohibited companies from "collect[ing], captur[ing], purchas[ing], receiv[ing]" or "disclos[ing], redisclos[ing], or otherwise disseminat[ing]" an individual's biometric data. Id. Sec. 14/15(b)-(d). The BIPA further imposed statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 for each negligent violation of the statute, and $5,000 for each intentional violation. Id. Sec. 14/20. As a result, what constituted a single "violation" of the BIPA had significant consequences for companies. If violations occurred on a "per person" basis, the highest amount of damages that a company could owe an individual was $1,000 or $5,000 respectively. However, if violations occurred on a "per scan" or "per incident" basis, companies would owe damages for each time that they collected or disseminated that data. Under the latter, companies could be required to sometimes pay "class-wide damages [that] . . . exceed $17 billion" dollars. Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., 2023 IL 128004, Paragraph 76 (Feb 17, 2023) (Overstreet, J., dissenting). Despite the legislature's concerns with collecting biometric information, many companies argued that this outcome cannot be what the Illinois General Assembly intended. Regardless, on February 17, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on this statutory question. The Supreme Court held that "the plain language of section 15(b) and 15(d) demonstrates that such violations occur with every scan or transmission." Id. at Paragraph 31. However, the opinion was not unanimous. Justice Overstreet objected to this interpretation of the statute and criticized the majority for adopting an interpretation that caused "Illinois businesses to be subject to cataclysmic, jobs-killing damages, potentially up to billions of dollars, for violations of the Act." Id. at Paragraph 73 (Overstreet, J., dissenting). But Justice Overstreets' dissents were only dissents, and his interpretation of the law was not adopted. Legislative Revisions To The BIPA Under SB 2979 On August 2, 2024, and over a year later, Governor Pritzker and the Illinois General Assembly vindicated Justice Overstreet's dissents. They explained that "it does not withstand reason to believe the legislature intended this absurd result." Id. SB 2979 makes two major corrections to the BIPA's draconian reach. First, the reform removes "per scan" violations from the statute. Now, damages under Sections 15(b) and 15(d) of the BIPA accrue on a "per person" basis. Specifically, the statute now states: (b) For purposes of subsection (b) of Section 15, a private entity that, in more than one instance, collects, captures, purchases, receives through trade, or otherwise obtains the same biometric identifier or biometric information from the same person using the same method of collection in violation of subsection (b) of Section 15 has committed a single violation of subsection (b) of Section 15 for which the aggrieved person is entitled to, at most, one recovery under this Section. (c) For purposes of subsection (d) of Section 15, a private entity that, in more than one instance, discloses, rediscloses, or otherwise disseminates the same biometric identifier or biometric information from the same person to the same recipient using the same method of collection in violation of subsection (d) of Section 15 has committed a single violation of subsection (d) of Section 15 for which the aggrieved person is entitled to, at most, one recovery under this Section regardless of the number of times the private entity disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated the same biometric identifier or biometric information of the same person to the same recipient. 740 ILCS 14/20 (b)-(c) (emphasis added). Second, the statute now also allows for companies to obtain a "electronic signature" in order to secure a release from BIPA liability. 740 ILCS 14/10. Impact Of SB 2979 On Class Action Litigation Under The BIPA The importance of this reform cannot be understated. For example, before SB 2979, at a company like the one in Cothron, where each employee "scans his finger (or hand, face, retina, etc.) on a timeclock four times per day -- once at the beginning and end of each day and again to clock in and clock out for one meal break -- over the course of a year," that company would have collected a single employee's "biometric identifiers or information more than 1000 times." Cothron, 2023 IL 128004, Paragraph 78 (Overstreet, J., dissenting). Over the course of five years, that same employee may have scanned over 5,000 times. Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2023 IL 127801, Paragraph 32 (Feb. 2, 2023) (holding 5-year statute of limitations applies for violations of the BIPA). Under those circumstances, at a rate of $1,000 per violation, a company may owe $5,000,000 to that employee alone. And, at a rate of $5,000 per violation, a company may owe $25,000,000 to that employee. After SB 2979's passing, this exact same company would only owe $1,000 or $5,000 to each employee respectively. A such, this reform ushers in a new era of damages limits surrounding BIPA litigation, and peace of mind to corporate counsel charged with defending their companies from such massive liability. Implications for Employers As to companies currently engaged in BIPA litigation, there is reason to believe that such legislation may not be viewed as retroactive. However, even if this legislation is not retroactive, damages under the BIPA are discretionary and are not required to be imposed. See, e.g., Rogers v. BNSF Railway Company, 680 F. Supp. 3d 1027, 1041-42 (N.D. Ill. 2023). Companies can expect the retroactive-effect of SB 2979, or lack thereof, to be the next battleground for BIPA litigation. Consequently, SB 2979 now places companies in the best position possible to avoid "this job-destroying liability" until the remaining BIPA cases work themselves through the judicial system. Cothron, 2023 IL 128004, Paragraph 86 (Overstreet, J., dissenting). As those cases progress, companies should revisit to ensure continued compliance with the BIPA and monitor SB 2979's impact in on-going BIPA cases. [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 ***