/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240819.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, August 19, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 166
Headlines
7TH STREET: Fernandez and Suarez Seek to Recover Unpaid OT
AAA NORTHEAST: Website Inaccessible to Blind People, Murphy Claims
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Faces Class Suits Over Patient Data Breach
ACCEL SCHOOLS: Hubbard Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
ADVANCED MARKETING: Bids to Certify Classes Due Feb. 3, 2025
AGILON HEALTH: Continues to Defend New England Teamster Class Suit
AMAZON.COM: Expert Discovery in Munz Suit Due Sept. 27
AMAZON.COM: Gibbs Law, Tousley Brain Appointed as Co-Lead Counsel
AMERICAN FAMILY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Brink Suit Says
AMERICAN HONDA: Clark Seeks to Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
AMERICARE SYSTEMS: Lyon Sues Over Worker Misclassification
ANCIENT ORGANICS: Bid to Compel Discovery Responses Partly OK'd
APPLE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Feb. 7, 2025
ARBOR REALTY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 30
ASCEND FINANCE: Gillen Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
ASHLEY MOOS: Faces Claude Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AT&T INC: Non-AT&T Subscribers Sue Over Massive Data Breach
BAKLAVA INC: Castro Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
BANK OF AMERICA: Misuses Forfeited Plan Assets, Becerra Alleges
BLADE AIR: Vrana Seeks to Invalidate Resignation Bylaw
BMK EXPEDITE: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Modifies Class Cert Briefing Date
BRINKER INT'L: Parties in Hale Seek to Modify Briefing Schedule
BUDACKIS HOT: Carreto Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Overtime
CALIFORNIA PAK: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Bishop Suit Says
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Deprivation of Liberty
CANADA: Court Certifies Immigration Detainees' Class Action
CAO INVESTMENT: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Brito Says
CARECENTRIX INC: Court Tosses Partial Bid to Dismiss Certain Claim
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Brooks Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
CENTRAL GARDEN: Allowed to File Third-Party Complaint
CHEBOYGAN COUNTY, MH: Court Amends Class Status Order in Arkona
CLAYTON CHRISTIAN: Seeks to Denial of Niman Class Certification Bid
CLEAN HARBORS: Court Junks Bush Class Cert Bid
CLIF BAR: Settles False Advertising Class Suit for $12-MM
COLUMBUS, OH: Police Officers Sue Over Cybersecurity Breach
COOPERSURGICAL INC: Couple Sue Over Embryo Culture Media Recall
COPART INC: Cohen Suit Seeks to Certify Four Classes
CRAFT REVOLUTION: Bell Seeks FLSA Conditional Collective Status
CROWNSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Sep. 30
DAVIDSBEENHERE.COM LLC: Mobile Website Inaccessible, Lucius Says
DELTA AIR: Passengers Seeks Massive Computer Outage Refunds
DELTA STAR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wilson Suit Extended to Oct. 3
DELTA STAR: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Status Bid
DEZER INTRACOASTAL: Brito Sues over ADA Violations
DREAM TEAM: Delivery Drivers Seek Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA
EBERLESTOCK USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Calcano Alleges
ERIC GARCETTI: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of Status Order
FPL FOOD: Taylor Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
FUNKO INC: Settle Securities Class Suit for $2.1-Mil.
G1 THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Kahn Swick
GEICO INDEMNITY: Shiloah Sues Over Breach of Contracts
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Approves $12-Mil. Class Action Settlement
GOODYEAR TIRE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alfonso Claims
GRIID INFRASTRUCTURE: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to CleanSpark
GSE SYSTEMS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Pelican Energy
HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Schelhas Seeks Conditional Certification
HEALTH CAREER: Roberson Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Davis-Jones Says
HIGH TIMES: Investors Sue Over Mismanagement of Investment Funds
IDAHO: Court OK's Plaintiffs' Bid for Temporary Restraining Order
INTEL CORP: Faces Another Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
INTEL CORPORATION: Faces Securities Suit Over 26% Stock Price Drop
INTER-CON SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Figueroa Alleges
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Seeks to Seal Opposition to Class Cert Bid
IOVATE HEALTH: Ct. Dismisses Schoonover First Amended Complaint
JAGUAR LAND: Rains et al. Sue Over Defective Windshields
JAMES RIVER GROUP: Continues to Defend Glantz Class Suit
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Continues to Defend DEI Class Suit in Quebec
JPMORGAN CHASE: Brown BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Milan Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
KALEIDA HEALTH: Clearly Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
KOHLS INC: Class Certification Order Entered in Witt Lawsuit
LAGNIAPPE NATIONAL: Hartman Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Spradley Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
LANGUAGE LINE: Class Settlement in Oliveira Suit Gets Initial Nod
LEAD DOG: Sendak Sues Over Unlawful Reimbursement Policy
LEGALZOOM.COM INC: Erasmus Fraud Suit Removed to D.N.J.
LEIDOS INC: Parties Must Re-Notice Hearing on Class Cert Bid
LGBCOIN LTD: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
LHNH LAVISTA: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Briefing
LIFERX.MD INC: Discloses Info to Third Parties, Hedgeman Suit Says
LOEWS HOLLYWOOD: Cardenas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
LOS ANGELES, CA: Morales Sues Over Vaccine Mandate Policy
LPL FINANCIAL: Peters Sues Over Cash Sweep Programs
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Oct. 7
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Parish of St. Mary Suit Removed to W.D. La.
LYNN GROUP: Alicea Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely
M&M TRANSPORT: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Barbery Says
M.A. FORD: Harter Files Suit in S.D. Iowa
M.C. DEAN: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
MACROGENICS INC: Continues to Defend Crain Securities Class Suit
MADE IN ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Rodriguez Claims
MAINE: Faces Class Suit Over Psychotropic Drugs in Foster Care
MALLINCKRODT: Bid to Dismiss Continental Suit Remains Pending
MANJARI CHAWLA: Court Dismisses Krause Class Suit
MARSONER INC: Fascinations.net Inaccessible to Blind, Espinal Says
MCKINSEY & CO: Class Settlement in Opiate Suit Gets Final Nod
MDL 2873: Bratt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
MDL 2873: Faces Bearb Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
MDL 2873: Fedor Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Lewis Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Smedley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Wolfing Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Ruling on Class Cert Bid Temporarily Stayed
META PLATFORMS: Teen Sues Over Harm Posed to Young Users
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 16, 2025
MODERNA INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Gibbs Law Group Investigates Cash Sweep Class Suit
NANO NUCLEAR: Faces Securities Class Suit Over False Statements
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Updates Terms of Service on Media Platforms
NATIONAL HEALTH: Seeks to Dismiss Trafficking Class Action Suit
NATIONAL RUGBY: Discloses Viewers' Info to Meta, Blakeley Alleges
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo Under Seal
NEW YORK: Bid for Extension of Discovery in Cardew Tossed
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Data Breach Class Action Allowed to Proceed
NIKE RETAIL: Filing for Class Certification Bid in Jones Due Nov. 8
NORTH CAROLINA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 26
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Joint CMC Statement Must be Filed by Nov. 27
PAC HOUSING: Hills Seeks More Time to File Amended Witness List
PANORAMA ORTHOPEDICS: Court Enters Class Cert. Order in Stanley
PEARCE SERVICES: Lemons Sue Over Illegal Meal Deduction Policy
PENNEY OPCO: Class Cert Bid Deadline Amended to Sept. 6
PUPY GROCERY: Santana Allleges Labor Law Violations
READING INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert
RESTAURANT DEPOT: Warren BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
RITE AID: Judka Sues Over 2.2 Million Personal Info Data Breach
STEIN SAKS: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in EISI Suit
STRIVECTIN OPERATING: Haviland Balks at Illegal Tiktok Software
SUBWAY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chaudhari Suit Alleges
SUNNOVA ENERGY: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SUNY DOWNSTATE: Fact Discovery in Blain Suit Due Oct. 22
SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Zaidi Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 27
SUPREME TOUCH: Fails to Pay Health Aides' OT Wages Under FLSA
TARGET CORPORATION: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Halley Due Sept. 23
TENNESSEE: Lawrence Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
TJX COMPANIES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: Agrees to Settle Camry HVAC Class Action
TRICIDA INC: Class Cert Hearing in Pardi Suit Set for Sept. 12
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Labor Class Action Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: UberX Drivers Class Suit Settlement Pending
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert Hearing in LD Suit Moved to Oct. 15
UNITED STATES: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Sept. 9
USAA FEDERAL: Reaches $64-Mil. Settlement Over Improper Bank Fees
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Strike Tucson's Expert Report
VICTORIA: Signs Towers Demolition Deals Despite Class Action
WHALECO INC: Arbitration Bid Denial in Smith Suit Appealed
WHOLE FOODS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Safari Suit Moved to Dec. 6
[*] Groups Clash Over CMS' 2024 European Class Action Report
[*] Securities Class Action Filings Rise in First Half of 2024
*********
7TH STREET: Fernandez and Suarez Seek to Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Fernandez, Julian Suarez, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. 7th Street Apartments LLC, Ghulam Usman,
and Zee Larkan, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-61251
(S.D. Fla., July 17, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for
unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants employed Plaintiffs Suarez and Fernandez as
non-exempt, full-time, hourly handymen and maintenance and
remodeling employees between January 2023 and February 2024. The
Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours hours weekly, but they were
not paid for overtime hours. In addition, they were paid with
checks and cash without paystubs, providing information about the
wage rate, number of days and hours worked, employee taxes
withheld, etc, say the Plaintiffs.
The 7th Street Apartments is a rental apartment condominium located
at 2617 North Ocean Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, FL. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
AAA NORTHEAST: Website Inaccessible to Blind People, Murphy Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AAA NORTHEAST, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05380 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
Plaintiff Murphy alleges that Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website constitutes violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law. Moreover, 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.
Headquartered Providence, RI, AAA Northeast operates the AAA online
insurance sales office as well as the AAA interactive Website,
https://northeast.aaa.com, 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 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
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Faces Class Suits Over Patient Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Deaville, writing for KPLC, reports that numerous class
action lawsuits have been filed in federal court against Acadian
Ambulance in relation to patient health information being accessed
by a hacker earlier this year, according to reporting by KLFY.
The federal suits, filed by patients and former employees, allege
that the cybercriminal organization Daxin Team was able to access
patient information such as full names, social security numbers,
dates of birth, and medical and treatment information.
KLFY reports that the lawsuits say the hackers demanded Acadian
Ambulance pay a $7 million ransom for the return of the stolen
information. The ambulance company refused and instead offered to
pay $173,000, which the hackers rejected.
It is unknown at this time what Acadian Ambulance has done to
ensure similar incidents will not happen in the future and some of
those who filed the lawsuit say that Acadian has not offered
recovery or protective services following the breach. This is after
some of these individuals say they have spent considerable time and
money attempting to mitigate the harm done.
According to one lawsuit filed on July 31, there have apparently
been attempts by Accadian to raise more funds but it is unknown if
the ransom has yet been paid. Daixin has threatened to release the
full data if its demands are not met. [GN]
ACCEL SCHOOLS: Hubbard Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled RAYMOND HUBBARD, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCEL SCHOOLS LLC, a foreign
limited liability company doing business as VIRTUAL PREPARATORY
ACADEMY of WASHINGTON; DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington
entities, Defendants, Case No. 24-00002-14258-4 SEA, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the
County of King to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington at Seattle on July 26, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-01127 to the proceeding.
On June 25, 2024, the Plaintiff initiated this civil action in King
County Superior Court by filing a copy of the summons and complaint
with that Court. The complaint sets forth one cause of action
against Defendant, premised on Defendant's alleged use of job
postings that do not include the wage scales or salary ranges to be
offered to hired applicants. The complaint is styled as a class
action and asserts allegations on behalf of a putative class under
Washington Civil Rule 23.
Accel Schools LLC is a for-profit education management organization
that operates 77 charter schools and 15 online schools primarily in
Ohio.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq.
Derek A. Bishop, Esq.
Madhura Panjini, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3122
Telephone: (206) 623-3300
Facsimile: (206) 447-6965
E-mail: bsmartell@littler.com
debishop@littler.com
mpanjini@littler.com
ADVANCED MARKETING: Bids to Certify Classes Due Feb. 3, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA REIDT, v. ADVANCED
MARKETING AND PROCESSING, INC. and DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00234-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie
Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows:
1. Amendments to the pleadings: Sept. 26, 2024
2. Disclosure of class experts:
Plaintiff: Dec. 9, 2024
Defendants: Jan. 6, 2025
3. Motions & Briefs to Certify/ Feb. 3, 2025
Decertify Classes:
4. Disclosure of liability experts:
Plaintiff: June 13, 2025
Defendants: July 25, 2025
5. Deadline for filing dispositive Sept. 5, 2025
motions:
6. Settlement Letters: Jan. 30, 2026
7. Discovery Cutoff: Jan. 30, 2026
8. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and Feb. 13, 2026
all motions in limine:
Objections: March 6, 2026
9. First Final Pretrial Conference: March 25, 2026
10. Second Final Pretrial Conference: April 1, 2026
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jEZLwK at no extra
charge.[CC]
AGILON HEALTH: Continues to Defend New England Teamster Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Agilon Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend New England Teamster class suit in Western District of
Texas.
In March, a putative class action lawsuit, New England Teamsters
Pension Fund v. agilon health, inc. et al., 1:24-cv-00297 (W.D.
Tex., March 19, 2024) was filed. The lawsuit names the Company and
certain current and former members of the Company's executive team
and Board of Directors as defendants.
The lawsuit generally asserts securities fraud claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended and under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with statements made in the
Company's annual and quarterly reports and earnings releases
related to, among other things, the Company's medical utilization
and claims rates, medical margin, incurred but not reported
reserve, and profit margins between April 2021 to February 2024.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, attorney's fees and other
unspecified equitable and/or injunctive relief.
The Company is unable to estimate the ultimate individual or
aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact due to
the early stages of the litigation.
Headquartered in Austin, TX, Agilon Health, Inc is a healthcare and
technology company that acts as an intermediary between physician
groups that provide medical services to senior citizens and
Medicare and Medicare Advantage insurers. [BN]
AMAZON.COM: Expert Discovery in Munz Suit Due Sept. 27
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOBBY MUNIZ, v. AMAZON.COM
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02768-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge John Gallagher entered an order that the Scheduling Order is
amended as follows:
1. All fact and expert discovery in Phase (1) shall be completed
no
later than Sept. 27, 2024.
(a) Affirmative expert affidavits in Phase (1), if any, are
due
by Aug. 30, 2024.
(b) Rebuttal expert affidavits in Phase (1), if any, are due
by
Sept. 13, 2024.
(c) Expert depositions in Phase (1), if any, shall be
concluded
no later than Sept. 27, 2024.
(d) All motions for Pennsylvania state law class
certification
and motions for summary judgment on individuals shall be
filed by Oct. 25, 2024. Responses shall be filed no later
than Nov. 8, 2024. Motions and responses shall be filed
in
the form prescribed in Judge Gallagher's Policies and
Procedures.
2. All other dates in the Scheduling Order remain in full
effect.
Amazon.com Services provides e-commerce services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W9b81l at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM: Gibbs Law, Tousley Brain Appointed as Co-Lead Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILBERT NAPOLEON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00186-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein entered an order:
-- granting the Gibbs Law Group LLP and Tousley Brain Stephens
PLLCs
Motion for Appointment as Interim Co-Lead Counsel; and
-- denying the Motion filed by Dovel & Luner LLP for Appointment
as
Interim Class Counsel.
The Court expects the Gibbs Law and Tousley Brain attorneys to
extend their full cooperation to their co-counsel throughout these
initial stages, to include them in key decision-making processes,
and to draw on their experience and resources to maximize the
efficiency and fairness of this litigation.
The Plaintiffs in these consolidated actions bring claims against
the Defendant for breach of contract and for violation of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act, among other claims. The
Plaintiffs in all four actions generally allege that the Defendant
breached its duties to its Amazon Prime subscribers when, on Jan.
29, 2024, it imposed an additional monthly fee of $2.99 for
commercial-free video streaming, a service that the Plaintiffs
claim customers had already paid for through their annual
subscription fee.
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company, engaged
in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P6aRnc at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Brink Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW BRINK and FARTINA SEGURA, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, S.I., a corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00562 (W.D. Wisc.,
Aug. 9, 2024) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), state wage-and-hour law, and common law by
systematically failing to compensate its remote call workers (RCWs)
for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts
and during their unpaid meal periods, when they were not logged
into Defendant's timekeeping system, which resulted in RCWs not
being paid for all hours worked, whether at the employee's base
rate in non-overtime week or overtime hours worked in weeks where
RCWs worked at 40 hours.
The RCW includes Customer Service Representative I and II, Sales
Representative I and II, Agency Title and Sales Representative I
and II, Senior Representative I and II, Team Manager, Life
Representative I and II, and Business Representative I and II, to
refer to remote call workers.
The Defendant allegedly classified its RCWs as non-exempt and
tasked them with the primary job duty of providing over-the-phone
customer service. The Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of: All current and former hourly RCWs who worked for Defendant at
any time during the three years preceding the filing of this
Complaint up through and including judgment.
This is also a collective and class action brought pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 by Plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons
employed by Defendant, arising from Defendant' willful violations
of the FLSA, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.
American Family provides vehicle, property, life, and commercial
insurance products to customers throughout the United States. To
provide its services, American Family employed (and continues to
employ) numerous customer service representatives and other remote
call workers—including Plaintiffs and the individuals that make
up the putative or potential class.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julia Ozello, Esq.
Mark R. Miller, Esq.
WALLACE MILLER
150 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-261-6193
E-mail: jo@wallacemiller.com
mrm@wallacemiller.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MH 48076
Telephone: 248-355-0300
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Clark Seeks to Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINNIE CLARK, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY LTD., a
Japanese corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-03147-AB-MRW (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
application for leave to file under seal certain portions of their
Motion for Class Certification and exhibits filed in support
thereof.
This Application, which is accompanied by the Declaration of Kolin
C. Tang in support and a proposed Order, is narrowly tailored and
identifies the portions of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and the exhibits filed in support thereof that
Plaintiffs request to be filed under seal.
The exhibits at issue are, for the most part, materials produced by
or employee deposition testimony of Defendant, American Honda Motor
Co., Inc. ("AHM"), which AHM designated as "Confidential," pursuant
to section 5 of the Stipulated Protective Order entered between the
parties and granted by the Court on Aug. 17, 2021.
The portions of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
remaining exhibits, which are Plaintiffs' expert reports, that
Plaintiffs also seek to file under seal either reference, discuss,
or describe the exhibits AHM designated as "Confidential."
Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b), Plaintiffs conferred with
counsel for AHM regarding the materials it designated as
"Confidential," and requested that AHM confirm those designations.
In response, counsel for AHM requested confidential treatment of
the materials sought to be sealed here. To be clear, Plaintiffs
take no position on the protectability of the documents sought to
be sealed here. Instead, Plaintiffs rely, in good faith and in the
spirit of cooperative discovery, on AHM's representations that the
documents warrant confidential treatment.
American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1M76ul at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Christopher Stiner, Esq.
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
MILLER SHAH, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
nfinkelman@millershah.com
kctang@millershah.com
AMERICARE SYSTEMS: Lyon Sues Over Worker Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE LYON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICARE SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a Americare
Senior Living, Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-03207-DPR (W.D. Mo.,
July 17, 2024) accuses the Defendant of unlawfully classifying
Plaintiff and other similarly situated healthcare workers as
independent contractors.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has denied these workers
the protections owed them under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Instead of paying these workers 1.5 times their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked over 40 hours in a single workweek, Defendant
simply pays these workers an hourly rate for each hour worked, says
the suit.
Headquartered in Sikeston, MO, Americare Systems, Inc. d/b/a
Americare Senior Living contracts with a third-party staffing
company called ShiftKey, LLC to advertise single shifts at its
facilities to healthcare workers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Stephen Ahal, Esq.
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
ahal@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Tom Wagstaff Jr., Esq.
Taylor Myers, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF TOM WAGSTAFF JR, LLC
6811 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Suite 314
Overland Park, KS 66202
Telephone: (816) 708-0524
Facsimile: (816) 708-0561
E-mail: tom@thewagstafflawfirm.com
taylor@thewagstafflawfirm.com
ANCIENT ORGANICS: Bid to Compel Discovery Responses Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY EFFINGER, et al., v.
ANCIENT ORGANICS LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-03596-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to
compel
further discovery responses, and
-- denying Plaintiffs' motion to change time.
Because the Defendant fails to show that Plaintiffs were served
with proper notice, it has not established that it is entitled to
compel their depositions after the close of fact discovery. This
portion of the Defendant's motion is therefore denied.
So long as Stevernu remains in the case, the Defendant is entitled
to discovery from him. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to compel
is granted: within 14 days of this order, Stevernu shall provide
responses to the interrogatories.
The Court held an initial case management conference for this
putative class action on Dec. 12, 2023.
The Court set a case schedule during that conference, including an
April 1, 2024, close of fact discovery for class certification.
On March 27, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved for an extension of
deadlines.
The Plaintiffs timely filed an opposition brief on July 22, 2024.
On July 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the now-pending motion for
an extension of time to file expert disclosures and the motion for
class certification. The Defendant timely filed an opposition brief
on July 29, 2024.
Ancient Organics specializes in producing organic ghee using
traditional methods.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1PlGp7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Feb. 7, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFFINITY CREDIT UNION, et
al., v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-04174-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order amending case schedule in accordance
with the following dates:
Event Existing New
Deadline
Deadline
Class Certification Motion and Sept. 6, 2024 Feb. 7,
2025
Supporting Expert Report(s)
Exchange Expert Backup Materials Sept. 10, 2024 Feb. 11,
2025
for Class Certification Motion
Class Certification Opposition Dec. 17, 2024 May 19,
2025
and Supporting Expert Report(s)
Class Certification Reply and Feb. 25, 2025 July 22,
2025
Expert Rebuttal Report(s)
Exchange Expert Backup Materials Feb. 28, 2025 July 25,
2025
for Class Certification Reply
Close of Fact Discovery Apr. 12, 2025 Sept. 15,
2025
Exchange of Expert Report(s) Aug. 21, 2025 Jan. 23,
2026
Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, tablets,
personal computers, and wearable devices.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LuirTi at no extra
charge.[CC]
ARBOR REALTY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
September 30, 2024 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Arbor Realty Trust,
Inc. ("Arbor" or the "Company") (NYSE: ABR) securities between May
7, 2021 to July 11, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors suffering losses on their Arbor investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at (215) 638-4847 or by
email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On March 14, 2023, NINGI Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that Arbor had been "hiding a toxic real estate
portfolio of mobile homes with a complex web of real and fake
holdings companies for more than a decade." On this news, Arbor's
stock price fell $1.46, or 11.2%, over two consecutive trading days
to close at $11.53 per share on March 15, 2023, thereby injuring
investors.
Then, on December 5, 2023, Viceroy Research published a report
claiming that, in an "industry plagued with delusion and bad
decisions, [Arbor] stands out as the worst of the worst." The
report further stated that the Company's "entire loan book is
distressed and underlying collateral is vastly overstated." On this
news, Arbor's stock price fell $0.71, or 5.1%, over two consecutive
trading days, to close at $13.15 per share on December 6, 2023.
Then, on July 12, 2024, Bloomberg reported that federal prosecutors
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were looking into Arbor
regarding its lending practices and the Company's claims about the
performance of their loan book. On this news, Arbor's stock price
fell $2.64, or 17%, to close at $12.89 per share on July 12, 2024,
thereby injuring investors further.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants: (1) provided investors with
false and/or materially misleading information concerning its
operational and financial health, including its balance sheet loan
book and net interest income; (2) provided investors with this
information in quarterly and annual reports filed with the SEC as
well as orally during earnings conference calls; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Arbor securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 30,
2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
(215) 638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
ASCEND FINANCE: Gillen Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM
M. GILLEN P.C., on behalf of Plaintiff and a class, v. ASCEND
FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00456-JL-AJ (D.N.H.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of
(a) all persons and firms
(b) listed by Defendant Ascend Finance Corporation under its
listings for bankruptcy attorneys
(c) who have not agreed to a business relationship with Ascend.
There are approximately 9516 such persons and firms. Gillen seeks
certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2).
Alternatively, Gillen seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
Ascend specializes in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy,
Debt Settlement and Debt Payoff Planner.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TVZNUf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard D. Gaudreau, Esq.
RICHARD D. GAUDREAU ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
395 Main Street
Salem, NH 03079
Telephone (603) 893-4300
- and -
Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 South Clark Street, Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60603-1841
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
ASHLEY MOOS: Faces Claude Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
WISLANDE CLAUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASHLEY MOOS INTERIORS LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-08059 (D.N.J., July 26, 2024)
is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.ahomesummit.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most
recently on March 15, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered
barriers that denied him full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content and services. Due to Defendant's failure to
build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access
programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly
interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of
purchasing the pillow (Alda Ice with Velvet Lumbar Pillow), she
wished to acquire from the website, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Ashley Moos Interiors Limited Liability Company operates an online
store that provides collection of linens, home furnishings, and
gifts, offering personalized and custom home decor solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
AT&T INC: Non-AT&T Subscribers Sue Over Massive Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that plaintiffs
Debbie Hale and Nick Margeas filed a class action lawsuit against
AT&T Inc.
Why: Although they are not AT&T customers, the plaintiffs claim
their information was compromised in the AT&T data breach announced
in July because they utilized the company's networks.
Where: The AT&T class action lawsuit was filed in Texas federal
court.
A new AT&T class action lawsuit alleges the telecom company's
massive data breach affected non-AT&T subscribers, leaving them
vulnerable to the actions of malevolent actors.
Plaintiffs Debbie Hale and Nick Margeas say they were customers of
other telecom companies when hackers accessed the call and text
records of AT&T customers and customers of other wireless providers
that utilized AT&T's network in 2022 and 2023. AT&T announced
details about the breach in July.
Hale says she was a Verizon customer and Margeas says he was a
T-Mobile customer at the time of the AT&T data breach.
"Plaintiffs now face the possibility that malevolent actors will
blackmail them with the information disclosed in this data breach
and therefore have sustained emotional distress," the AT&T class
action lawsuit alleges.
They explain Verizon, T-Mobile and other companies are "mobile
virtual network operators" that utilized AT&T's networks at the
time the hackers accessed its call and text records. The hackers
allegedly stole logs containing records of every phone number that
putative class members called or texted, the number of times they
interacted and the call duration.
AT&T data breach announcement ignored non-AT&T customers,
plaintiffs say
When AT&T announced the data breach on July 12, it failed to
disclose that customers of other wireless carriers may have also
had their sensitive data stolen, the AT&T data breach class action
claims.
The AT&T class action asserts the company had a duty to protect
customer data yet failed to take adequate steps to do so despite a
history of previous data breaches. The plaintiffs point out that
the July data breach is the second one AT&T has announced just this
year; in March, the company revealed a breach had exposed the
personal information of about 73 million customers.
As a result of the AT&T data breach, affected consumers are at risk
of identity theft, fraud and blackmail and must spend time taking
steps to mitigate any potential damage, the plaintiffs say.
Hale and Margeas filed the AT&T class action lawsuit on behalf of
customers of certain non-AT&T wireless carriers who used AT&T's
network from May 1, 2022, to Oct. 31, 2022, or in January 2023 and
whose personally identifiable information was accessed in the AT&T
data breach announced July 12.
AT&T is already facing several data breach class action lawsuits
from customers who say the company failed to adequately protect
their data.
Were you affected by the AT&T data breach? Tell us about your
experience in the comments.
Hale and Margeas are represented by Scott Summy of Baron & Budd PC,
Elizabeth A. Fegan and Megan Shannon of Fegan Scott LLC and J.
Barton Goplerud of Shindler Anderson Goplerud & Weese PC.
The AT&T data breach class action lawsuit is Debbie Hale, et al. v.
AT&T Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01943, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. [GN]
BAKLAVA INC: Castro Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON CASTRO on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BAKLAVA INC. d/b/a EFE MARKET ORGANIC FOOD, VOLKAN
KARACA, and FATIH KARACA, Case No. 1:24-cv-05521 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7,
2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
In November 2019, the Plaintiff entered into an oral contract with
the Defendants whereby the Plaintiff agreed to work at EFE in
exchange for at least a minimum wage. From November 2019 to
November 2020, the Plaintiff's regular rate of pay was $750.00 per
week and Plaintiff worked for 63 hours a week. As a result, the
Plaintiff was paid approximately $11.90 per hour, which was under
the New York City minimum wage of $15 per hour. Thus, including
overtime and the spread of hours, the Plaintiff's wage amounted
annually to approximately $57,960.00. However, the Defendants only
paid the Plaintiff approximately $36,000.00. The Plaintiff was thus
underpaid by approximately $21,960.00 from November 2019 to
November 2020, the suit alleges.
From December 2022 to February 22, 2024, the Plaintiff's regular
rate of pay was $950.00 per week and Plaintiff worked for 57 hours
a week. Including overtime, the Plaintiff's wage amounted to
approximately $55,020.00. However, the Defendants only paid the
Plaintiff approximately $53,200.00. the Plaintiff was thus
underpaid by approximately $1,820.00, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff avers that the Defendants were aware of their
requirement to pay the Plaintiff for each hour worked, and to pay
the overtime premium of one-and-a-half times his regular rate for
each hour worked in excess of 40 per week. Nevertheless, the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff his proper wages, including
overtime wages.
Mr. Castro was employed by the Defendants from November 2019 until
his termination on Feb. 22, 2024.
EFE Market Organic Food is a grocery store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
17 State Street, Suite 820
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 267-2101
BANK OF AMERICA: Misuses Forfeited Plan Assets, Becerra Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ESMERALDA BECERRA, individually and as representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries and on behalf of the Bank of America
401K Plan, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION CORPORATE BENEFITS COMMITTEE; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 5:24-cv-01697 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2024) arises out of the
Defendants Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America
Corporation Corporate Benefits Committee's, wrongful use, for their
own benefit, of assets in their employees' 401k retirement plan.
The Defendants used forfeited plan assets to reduce its employer
contribution obligations, rather than for the benefit of plan
participants, in violation of the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") and Defendants' fiduciary responsibilities,
says the suit.
In this action, the Plaintiff seeks damages in connection with
Defendants' wrongful conduct in misusing forfeited Plan assets for
its own benefit.
Plaintiff Esmeralda Becerra is an individual who, during the
relevant period, resided in Riverside, California. The Plaintiff
was at all relevant times participating in the 401k Plan at issue.
The Bank of America 401K Plan is a defined contribution, individual
account, employee pension benefit plan under 29 U.S.C. section
1002(2)(A) and section 1002(34) and is subject to the provisions of
ERISA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1003(a).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (213) 514-5681
Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
at@haffnerlawyers.com
vh@haffnerlawyers.com
BLADE AIR: Vrana Seeks to Invalidate Resignation Bylaw
------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS VRANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLADE AIR MOBILITY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2024-0757 (Del. Ch., July 17, 2024) accuses the Defendant's
board of directors of subverting the Delaware General Corporation
Law by maintaining a provision in the Amended and Restated Bylaws
of Blade Air Mobility, Inc. that requires individuals nominated by
Blade's stockholders for election to the Board to tender
irrevocable and contingent resignations in a form acceptable to the
incumbent Board of Directors.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief invalidating
the Resignation Bylaw. Plaintiff alleges that this Bylaw abrogates
stockholders' fundamental right to elect directors, memorialized in
Section 211.
Headquartered in New York, Blade Air Mobility, Inc. provides air
transportation and logistics for hospitals and passengers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0300
E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
- and -
J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq.
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
Telephone: (475) 477-5031
- and -
William J. Fields, Esq.
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Samir Shukurov, Esq.
FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404
Pleasantville, NY 10570
Telephone: (212) 231-1500
- and -
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Telephone: (484) 258-1585
BMK EXPEDITE: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
Eugenio Hernandez, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. BMK Expedite Inc., Legal Hustling Expedite Inc.,
Steve Miranda Sr., and Steve Miranda Jr., Defendants, Case No.
8:24-cv-01686 (M.D. Fla., July 17, 2024), seeks to recover monetary
damages for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Plaintiff Eugenio Hernandez was employed by Defendants as a
salaried truck driver from approximately March 15, 2024, to July 1,
2024, or 15 weeks. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff worked
from Monday to Sunday, a minimum average of 84 hours weekly.
However, a substantial number of Plaintiff's work hours were not
paid at any rate, not even at the minimum wage, as required by law.
In addition, at the moment of his resignation, the Defendants
refused to pay Plaintiff his last week of work and his two first
weeks that Defendants retained as a security deposit, says the
suit.
BMK Expedite Inc. is a transportation and trucking company based in
Tampa, FL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Modifies Class Cert Briefing Date
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Andre M. Espinosa entered an order modifying the
deadlines for serving the parties' class certification briefing.
BMW of North America markets and sells motor vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AVAKHE 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
BRINKER INT'L: Parties in Hale Seek to Modify Briefing Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA HALE and JESUS
GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
and the general public, v. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation; BRINKER INTERNATIONAL PAYROLL COMPANY, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership; BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a
Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-09978-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order modifying briefing schedule on the plaintiffs motion for
class certification:
Deadline/Hearing Current Modified
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class July 17, 2024 July 17,
2024
Certification
Defendants' Opposition Aug. 16, 2024 Aug. 30,
2024
Plaintiff's Reply Sept. 6, 2024 Oct. 4,
2024
Hearing on Motion for Class Sept. 26, 2024 Oct. 24,
2024
Certification at 10:00 a.m. at 10:00
a.m.
Both sides agree that a modification of the schedule is required in
light of the issues set forth herein and believe that good cause
exists for an order modifying the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification and that a similar adjustment to the
hearing date would be appropriate to provide the Court with a
reasonable amount of time to consider the papers and the voluminous
supporting evidence that will accompany the respective Opposition
and Reply.
On July 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs' counsel advised that Declarant
Britney Gutierrez "is giving birth today and will not be available
to be deposed" but were also able to provide another Declarant's
availability for deposition.
The Plaintiffs' counsel also reached out for the first time to the
2 other Declarants.
On July 31, 2024, counsel for the Parties met telephonically to
meet and confer on the short timetable for Defendants to depose
Plaintiffs Hale and Gomez in addition to the Declarants.
They were able to confirm the availability for 2 more Declarants
that were previously not available on the originally noticed dates.
And Defendants' counsel proposed taking Declarant McSpadden’s
deposition on August 5, 2024.
On August 1, 2024, Defendants took the deposition of Plaintiff
Gomez as originally noticed. Plaintiffs' counsel were able to
contact Declarant McSpadden who confirmed she can be deposed on
August 5, 2024.
Brinker owns and operates over one hundred restaurants in
California, including such chains as Chili's Grill and Bar and
Maggiano's Little Italy
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kDeG2i at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr., Esq.
Tyson Gibb, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
jose@setarehlaw.com
tyson@setarehlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin D. Reese, Esq.
Geoffrey R. Pittman, Esq.
Robert Yang, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Kevin.Reese@jacksonlewis.com
Geoffrey.Pittman@jacksonlewis.com
Rob.Yang@jacksonlewis.com
BUDACKIS HOT: Carreto Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO RENE LOPEZ CARRETO, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v.
BUDACKIS HOT DOG INC., an Illinois corporation d/b/a BUDACKI'S
DRIVE IN, YOUNG SONG, an individual, and JAE S. LEE, an individual,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07024 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 9, 2024) arises under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance for Defendants'
failure to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees,
overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
During the period from at least August 2021 through June 29, 2024,
Plaintiff Carreto regularly worked six days each week including
Monday through Saturday from 10:30 a.m. to at least 7:30 p.m.
Plaintiff Carreto typically did not work on Sunday. The Defendants
paid Plaintiff a salary in amounts ranging from approximately $720
to $1,000 per week without regard to the number of hours Plaintiff
worked.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are current
and former cooks, food preparers, cleaners and kitchen staff
employees of Defendants' Budacki's Drive In restaurant.
The Defendant operates the Budacki’s Drive In restaurant located
on North Damen Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, and is engaged in
selling and serving prepared food and beverages to customers for
consumption on and off its premises.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN LAW OFFICE
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 322-1100
E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
CALIFORNIA PAK: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Bishop Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. CALIFORNIA PAK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-06011 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website, https://www.calpaktravel.com/, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
July 15, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Women's pink bag from
the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him 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 suit says.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation,
the suit adds.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Bishop is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
California Pak makes luggage, backpacks, duffels and
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, 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: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Deprivation of Liberty
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-05017 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 9,
2024) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiffs individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated claiming for
deprivation of liberty without due process of law and violation of
right to a fair trial, under the Fourteenth Amendment Against All
Defendants.
The Plaintiff was sentenced to 100 days in the San Francisco County
Jail and three years of formal probation for a crime that he did
not commit -- the threatening of former San Francisco District
Attorney George Gascon in 2012 via Facebook.
John Doe's wrongful conviction was a result of serious misconduct
and conflict of interests between the San Francisco Public
Defender´s Office and the San Francisco District Attorney's
Office. Attorneys representing JOHN DOE failed to advise him of
their political endorsement of former San Francisco District
Attorney George Gascon and John Doe's political opponent David
Fernando Campos, according to filings with the San Francisco Ethics
Commission.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Christopher Castaneda, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. REZNICK
283 Ocho Rios Way
Oak Park, CA 91377-5540
Telephone: (818) 437-5630
E-mail: reznagoura@aol.com
bryanchristophercastaneda@gmail.com
CANADA: Court Certifies Immigration Detainees' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a class action lawsuit
for 8,360 immigration detainees held in provincial prisons, who
claimed their detention conditions violated the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and breached a duty of care, asserting that the
practice is punitive and unlawful.
Between May 15, 2016, and July 18, 2023, 8,360 individuals detained
by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) under the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) were held in provincial and
territorial prisons across Canada. This arrangement, facilitated
through agreements between CBSA and every Canadian province and
territory except Nunavut, involved detaining these individuals
under the same conditions as criminal inmates, which included
co-mingling with violent offenders, use of restraints, strip
searches, and severe restrictions on contact and movement.
Unlike the three immigration holding centres (IHCs) in Surrey,
British Columbia, Toronto, and Laval, Quebec, provincial prisons
imposed penal conditions on immigration detainees. According to the
plaintiffs, these conditions contradicted the administrative nature
of immigration detention, as emphasized by CBSA's guidelines.
The plaintiffs, Tyron Richard and Alexis Garcia Paez sought to
certify a class action under the Class Proceedings Act of 1992,
representing all immigration detainees subjected to these
conditions. They argued that CBSA's practice of incarcerating
immigration detainees in provincial prisons is punitive, violating
sections 7, 9, 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, and breaching a duty of care owed by Canada to the
detainees.
The plaintiffs also proposed a subclass for detainees with mental
health conditions, supported by evidence from two class members.
They sought damages and declaratory relief to halt Canada's alleged
unlawful behaviour.
The Attorney General of Canada opposed the motion, arguing that the
class action would be unmanageable due to the need for detailed
individual inquiries and applying different legal standards across
provinces. However, the court found that the plaintiffs met the
requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.
The Superior Court determined that the claims disclose a cause of
action under the Charter and negligence. The pleadings set out
material facts that could support a claim under sections 7, 9, 12,
and 15 of the Charter and a claim of negligence. The class was
identifiable, with a rational connection between the detainees and
the proposed common issues. The court concluded that the core
issues can be decided in common, addressing Canada's conduct in
detaining immigration detainees in provincial prisons.
The court deemed A class action the preferable method of addressing
the issues, considering access to justice, judicial efficiency, and
behavioural modification. The court also found that Richard and
Garcia Paez are adequate representative plaintiffs with a workable
litigation plan.
The court rejected Canada's objections regarding the class action's
manageability, the adequacy of the representative plaintiffs, and
the suitability of judicial review as an alternative. The court
highlighted that a class action would efficiently manage the
claims, address systemic issues, and provide a feasible path for
the detainees to seek justice and damages for alleged Charter
breaches and negligence.
As a result, the Ontario Superior Court certified the action as a
class proceeding, allowing the case to move forward. [GN]
CAO INVESTMENT: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Brito Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO v. CAO INVESTMENT III, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-23045
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 9, 2024) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals, seeking for injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated
against the Plaintiff by denying him access to full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and/or accommodations of their places of public
accommodation or commercial restaurant facility, in violation of 42
U.S.C. section 12181 et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq.
The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae
down) and is therefore substantially limited in major life
activities due to his impairment, including, but not limited to,
not being able to walk or stand. Plaintiff requires the use of a
wheelchair to ambulate.
The Defendant owned and operated a commercial property at 437 East
49th Street, Hialeah, Florida (the "Commercial Property") and
conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public
accommodation in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-Mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
CARECENTRIX INC: Court Tosses Partial Bid to Dismiss Certain Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NADEYAH JONES,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
CARECENTRIX, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01071-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Victor Bolden entered an order denying Defendants' partial
motion to dismiss the portion of Count I claiming that
CareCentrix's consideration of non-discretionary bonuses when
calculating pay rates violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Court will allow limited directed discovery into the total
amount of any and all wages allegedly owed to Ms. Jones—and Ms.
Jones's alone.
Discovery will not be limited to those wages related to Count I.
Accordingly, as the Court will allow limited directed discovery,
Court will deny without prejudice to renewal the issues raised in
the 12(b)(6) motion, until the completion of this limited
discovery, and if appropriate, raised in the context of a Rule 56
motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action based on the
Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), and common law. In her Amended Complaint, Ms. Jones
has brought three counts:
Count I alleges violations of the FLSA in a failure to pay
overtime and failure to calculate rates to include non-
discretionary bonuses;
Count II alleges breach of contract; and Count III alleges
unjust
enrichment.
CareCentrix manages healthcare-related home services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s7LUIO at no extra
charge.[CC]
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Brooks Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEWAYNE BROOKS, SUSAN CAMERON, CHRISTENE JONES, JOSHUA WELLS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CENTERPOINT
ENERGY, INC., THE BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC.,
and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 4:24-cv-02940 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 7,
2024) is a class action brought pursuant to sections 409 and 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, against the Plan's
fiduciaries, which include CenterPoint Energy, Inc. and the
Board of Directors of CenterPoint and its members, and the Benefits
Committee of CenterPoint and its members during the Class Period,
for breaches of their fiduciary duties.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, the
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, breached the duties they
owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants
of the Plan by failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping and
administrative costs.
At all times during the Class Period, the Plan had at least $2
billion dollars in assets under management. At the end of fiscal
year 2022 and 2021, the Plan had over $2.37 billion dollars
and $3.07 billion dollars, respectively, in assets under management
that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries, the
suit says.
The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1104.
Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary
and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, the
suit contends.
Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims against the
Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count One)
and failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count Two).
Plaintiff Brooks participated in the Plan paying the RKA costs
associated with his Plan account and was subject to the excessive
RKA costs. Plaintiff Brooks suffered injury to his Plan account by
overpaying for his share of RKA costs.
CenterPoint "is a domestic energy delivery company that includes
electric transmission & distribution, natural gas distribution and
energy services operations."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kell A. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF KELL A. SIMON
501 N. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 11
Austin, TX 78702
Telephone: (512) 898-9019
Facsimile: (512) 368-9144
E-mail: kell@kellsimonlaw.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Maro, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
jamesm@capozziadler.com
CENTRAL GARDEN: Allowed to File Third-Party Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLODIN, et al., v.
CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-01631-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting the
Defendants' motion for leave to file a third-party complaint.
The Defendants shall file their complaint within seven days of the
date of this order and complete service within 35 days of the date
of this order.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
which does, in fact, make little mention of avocado-sourcing
claims. However, as Defendants correctly observe, the Plaintiffs
have not "drop[ped] their claims about the California
representations," and such claims remain a part of this case.
On March 8, 2021, Plaintiffs Aaron Brand and John Flodin filed this
putative class action against the Defendants' Choice Pet Foods
based on allegedly misleading representations regarding Defendants'
AvoDerm dog and cat food. Some of those representations concern the
origin of the avocado used in the AvoDerm products—for example,
that the products are "only made with the flesh or oil of
California avocados."
Central Garden manufactures and distributes branded and private
label products. The Company provides lawn, garden, pottery, and
other outdoor.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nRzjbx at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHEBOYGAN COUNTY, MH: Court Amends Class Status Order in Arkona
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARKONA, LLC, and DIANNE
KASBOB, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. COUNTY OF CHEBOYGAN, and COUNTY OF MONROE, Case No.
1:19-cv-12372-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Ludington
entered an order:
-- granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Amend the Class
Certification Order, and
-- amending the Class Certification to the extent that the Class
definition shall be replaced by the following Class definition:
"All property owners formerly owning property within the
Counties
of Monroe and Cheboygan who, since Jan. 1, 2013, had said
property
seized by the Defendants via the General Property Tax Act, MCL
211.78 et seq, which was worth more and/or was sold at tax
auction
for more than the total tax delinquency and was not refunded
the
excess/surplus equity but excluding any property owner who has
filed their own post-forfeiture civil lawsuit to obtain such
relief."
Importantly, the Class Certification Order, will remain unchanged
in all other respects, so Plaintiffs' Counsel remains appointed as
Class Counsel.
In September 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit
against Cheboygan County and Monroe County, alleging that the two
Counties violated property owners' state and federal constitutional
rights each time they followed the statutorily prescribed
tax-foreclosure scheme by foreclosing on properties delinquent on
property taxes and retaining the surplus proceeds.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZdjPSo at no extra
charge.[CC]
CLAYTON CHRISTIAN: Seeks to Denial of Niman Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bethany Niman, Riley
Bennett, Jora Bolena, Kasey Calwell, Ursula Casey, Brian Hagan,
Miranda Starr, Elizabeth Vicencio, and Madison Ward, v. Clayton
Christian, Brianne Rogers, Todd Buchanan, Joyce Dombrouski, Casey
Lozar, Loren Bough, Jeff Southworth, Norris Blossom, Maria Mangold,
and Sarah Corbin, Case No. 9:23-cv-00079-DWM (D. Mont.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order denying class
certification.
The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove
that the proposed class satisfies the commonality requirement of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) and the typicality
requirement of Rule 23(a)(3). Nor have Plaintiffs demonstrated
"adequacy of representation," as required by Rule 23(a)(4).
The Plaintiffs have also failed to prove that the proposed class is
proper under any Rule 23(b) category, the Defendants add.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c)(1), counsel for Plaintiffs has been
contacted and states that Plaintiffs oppose this motion.
The Plaintiffs move to certify a class consisting of
"all professional students charged out-of-state tuition from
three
years before the filing of the complaint to present."
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s49ecG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dale Schowengerdt, Esq.
Timothy Longfield, Esq.
LANDMARK LAW PLLC
7 West 6th Avenue, Suite 518
Helena, MT 59601
Telephone: (406) 457-5496
E-mail: dale@landmarklawpllc.com
tim@landmarklawpllc.com
- and -
Hannah Tokerud, Esq.
MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Helena, MT 59620-3201
Telephone: (406)-449-9173
E-mail: htokerud@montana.edu
CLEAN HARBORS: Court Junks Bush Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ricky Bush, v. Clean
Harbors Colfax LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02026-DDD-JPM (W.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge Dee Drell entered an order denying Rule 23 class
certification bid.
The Plaintiffs alleges nuisance and trespass for the sounds created
at the Facility and the emissions that have landed on the
Plaintiffs', as well the proposed class's property.
The Plaintiffs have proposed the sub-classes:
-- The first comprised of all natural persons who resided within a
5-mile radius of the Facility at any time between Jan. 1,
2017,
and Dec. 31, 2022.
-- The second is comprised of all natural persons who resided
within an 8-mile radius of the Facility at any time between Jan. 1,
2017,
and Dec. 31, 2022.
Clean Harbors provides environmental and industrial services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lMz7wE at no extra
charge.[CC]
CLIF BAR: Settles False Advertising Class Suit for $12-MM
---------------------------------------------------------
The following notice is being issued by the Court-approved Class
Administrator and has been authorized by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, in Milan v. Clif Bar &
Co., No. 18-cv-2354-JD.
What is the lawsuit about? The lawsuit contends that Clif Bar &
Company ("Clif Bar") made certain statements on the labels of
various original Clif Bars and Clif Kid ZBars ("Class Products")
that are allegedly misleading because the statements suggested the
bars are healthy, whereas Plaintiffs allege the bars are unhealthy
because of their added sugar. Clif Bar maintains that these
products are not unhealthy due to the presence of added sugars, and
that the statements on its bars are true and not misleading. The
Court has not determined whether Plaintiffs or Clif Bar is
correct.
Who is included? You are a Class Member if you bought one of the
Class Products for household use, and not for resale or
distribution, between April 2014 and March 2023 in California or
New York, or between March 2019 and March 2023 in any other State.
The Class Products include Original Clif Bars in packaging stating
"Nutrition for Sustained Energy," and Clif Kid ZBars in packaging
stating "No High Fructose Corn Syrup;" "Nourishing Kids in Motion;"
"In raising our family, finding nutritious on-the-go snacks for our
kids wasn't easy. That's why we created Clif Kid -- wholesome,
delicious snacks made with organic ingredients to help keep kids
going, growing, and exploring;" "Blend of carbs, fiber, protein,
and fat gives kids energy so they can keep Zipping and Zooming
along," and similar Challenged Claims (as identified in the
Complaint in the Action).
What does the settlement provide? Clif Bar has agreed to establish
a $12,000,000 "Settlement Fund" to pay all Settlement expenses,
including the costs of class notice and administration, attorneys'
fees and costs, service awards for the Plaintiffs, and cash refunds
for Class Members who make valid Claims. Your legal rights will be
affected if you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself.
What are your options?
Submit A Claim: To receive Settlement benefits, you must complete
and submit a Claim Form. Claim Forms are available at the
Settlement Website, wwwBarsClassAction.com, and can be submitted
electronically or mailed to the Class Administrator. A Claim Form
must be submitted online or postmarked by November 25, 2024.
Opt-Out or Object: If you opt-out or request exclusion, you will
retain your rights to sue Clif Bar separately; however, you will
not be eligible to receive any benefits. You must submit a Request
for Exclusion, available at the Settlement Website,
www.BarsClassAction.com. Request for Exclusions must be postmarked
on or before October 22, 2024. Detailed instructions are available
on the Settlement Website. You may also object to any part of this
Settlement. Details about how to object are available at the
Settlement Website. Objections must be mailed to the Class
Administrator and postmarked on or before October 22, 2024.
Do Nothing: If you do nothing, you will not be eligible to receive
any benefits and will be bound by the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and Final Judgment.
Has the Court approved the Settlement? No. The Court has set a
hearing for November 14, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. California time, to
determine whether to approve the Settlement and what attorneys'
fees, expenses, and service payments to award. Class Counsel will
file a motion seeking an award of up to one-third of the Settlement
Fund in fees, and reimbursement of case expenses totaling up to
$917,584.35, plus any expenses incurred after entry of the
Preliminary Approval Order. Class Counsel will also seek on behalf
of the Class Representatives Service Awards of $5,000 each for
Ralph Milan and Elizabeth Arnold. The Court will determine the
amount of fees, expenses, and service awards that will be paid from
the Settlement Fund.
After Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and
service awards is filed on or before September 9, 2024, it will be
posted on the Settlement Website and you will have an opportunity
to review and comment on the motion via an objection.
You do not need to appear at the Final Approval Hearing but you may
come at your own expense. The Court has appointed Fitzgerald Monroe
Flynn PC as Class Counsel. If you want to be represented by your
own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.
This is only a summary of the key Settlement terms. A full copy of
the Settlement Agreement is available at the Settlement Website.
[GN]
COLUMBUS, OH: Police Officers Sue Over Cybersecurity Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
CWColumbus reports that Columbus police officers are suing the city
over data stolen by a ransomware group, saying their social
security numbers and personal information are on the dark web.
Two Columbus police officers filed the class action suit Friday,
August 9, in Franklin County Common Pleas.
The lawsuit alleges the city failed to protect officers' and other
employees' personal information and failed to follow industry and
Federal Trade Commission guidelines on data security.
International ransomware group Rhysida, which claims to have stolen
6.5 TB of city government data, threatened to release the
information publicly if a ransom of 30 BT (a little less than $2
million) was not paid.
The group claims information stolen from city servers includes
passwords, log-ins, databases and access to city cameras.
Previously, at least a dozen members of the Fraternal Order of
Police have reported their personal information has been
compromised since the data was stolen last month. Firefighters have
also come forward, saying they, too, have been targeted.
"I’m aware that the FOP has been in contact with an attorney and
directing officers who are harmed and wishing to file a class
action lawsuit to contact them. Other unions are expected to direct
their members there also," FOP Lodge 9Executive Vice President
Brian Toth said.
The lawsuit says that in addition to financial security fears, the
officers also fear being targeted by criminals. One of the officers
identifies themself as an undercover officer.
Since the deadline passed for the ransom, Mayor Andrew Ginther's
Office has disputed the value of the data stolen.
"While a foreign cyber threat actor claims to have released city
data, it has not been validated that the data is usable or
valuable. The fact that the threat actor’s attempted data auction
failed is a strong indication that the data lacks value to those
who would seek to do harm or profit from it," Ginther's statement
said, in part.
The mayor's office declined to comment on the pending litigation.
City Attorney Zach Klein's Office said:
"The City Attorney's Office is aware that a complaint was filed,
but we have not yet been served or reviewed it. As this is an
ongoing investigation, we cannot comment further at this time.
Additionally, any questions regarding the coordinated response to
the cybersecurity incident by the City, FBI and Homeland Security
should be directed to the mayor's administration."
The lawsuit seeks damages and restitution. [GN]
COOPERSURGICAL INC: Couple Sue Over Embryo Culture Media Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that
CooperSurgical faces a class action lawsuit seeking to represent
couples whose hopes for an IVF pregnancy were dashed when the
company was forced to recall its Lifeglobal embryo culture media,
because it was destroying fertilized eggs instead of causing them
to grow as intended.
The complaint was filed by a plaintiff identified only as J.G. on
July 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, seeking class action status for all women and couples
affected by the recall nationwide, and specifically in New York and
North Carolina. The lawsuit names The Cooper Companies and
CooperSurgical, Inc. as defendants.
IVF Embryo Culture Media Recall
During in vitro fertilization (IVF), health care professionals
remove a woman’s eggs and fertilize them with sperm. The eggs are
then placed in an embryo culture medium, which is intended to
promote their growth to the blastocyst stage, before being
implanted back into the woman’s uterus to be carried to term. The
entire IVF process can take months or years, and can cost tens of
thousands of dollars.
Late last year, CooperSurgical announced a LifeGlobal IVF culture
media recall, after discovering that the product was defective.
Instead of helping the embryos grow, CooperSurgical’s IVF culture
media has been blamed for destroying embryos, making them
unusable.
Since the company only notified retailers and distributors about
the recall, a number of couples who incurred the financial and
emotional costs associated with failed fertility treatment are only
now learning that defective CooperSurgical IVF culture media may be
responsible for their lost embryos. This has led to a growing
number of similar CooperSurgical IVF culture media lawsuits being
filed in different U.S. District Courts nationwide over the past
few months. However, unlike this new class action complaint, most
has been pursued as individual product liability lawsuits.
The CooperSurgical IVC class action lawsuit was brought by a
Connecticut woman who underwent fertility treatment with her
husband in New York, and was told that the treatment center used
the recalled CooperSurgical culture media on fertilized eggs
extracted from her as part of the procedure.
According to the complaint, all of her embryos were lost due to the
use of the recalled culture media. The lawsuit indicates that the
fact that this occurred during the final stages of fertility
treatment were devastating, raising concerns that she may have lost
her opportunity to bear children.
"CooperSurgical knew or should have known of the significant
economic and emotional toll imposed on fertility patients through
its manufacturing, selling, and shipping of defective Global Media
to fertility clinics," the lawsuit states. "Given that substantial
and foreseeable risk, CooperSurgical had a duty to reasonably
manufacture its Global Media and implement quality control measures
to inspect, test, and ensure that its media met the required
specifications."
She presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn,
negligent failure to recall, trespass to Chattels and unjust
enrichment.
In addition to seeking compensation for her own damages, the
lawsuit filed by J.G. seeks class action status to pursue claims on
all other similary situated individuals throughout the United
States who lost one or more embryos cultered using any of the
recalled culture media. Subclasses have also been proposed for
residents of New York and North Carolina, if the nationwide class
action is not certified.
"Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds of members of the
Nationwide Class and in each of the Subclasses," J.G. states in the
complaint. "CooperSurgical’s recall notice estimates nearly 1,000
affected bottles of the culter media, with nearly 500 purchased and
used by clinics, indicating a signficant number of patients
impacted by the defective media. Additionally, Class members may be
identified through objective means via fertility clinic records.
Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by
recognied, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may
include U.S. mail, electronic mail, internet postings and/or
published notice."
IVF Embryo Culture Media Lawsuits
The class action complaint raises claims and allegations nearly
identical to at least 30 different IVF lawsuits filed against
CooperSurgical over the past few months, which are currently spread
throughout at least four different U.S. District Courts.
To avoid duplicative discovery and potentially conflicting pretrial
rulings, a group of four plaintiffs filed a motion to centralize
all IVF embryo culture media lawsuits with the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on June 27, requesting that the
claims be transferred to one judge in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.
If the JPML chooses to consolidate the lawsuits before one judge,
pretrial proceedings will be coordinated to avoid duplicative
discovery into common issues in the cases, and the court will
likely establish a bellwether program where a small group of cases
will be prioritized, to help gauge how juries may interpret expert
testimony and evidence likely to be used in most, if not all, of
the trials.
After the bellwether trials, if the parties have not reached a
CooperSurgical IVF culture media lawsuit settlement agreement, or
some other resolution to the litigation, the cases will be remanded
back to the districts where they were originally filed for
individual trial dates. [GN]
COPART INC: Cohen Suit Seeks to Certify Four Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIK COHEN, On behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. COPART, INC., Case
No. 2:24-cv-03268-JAK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court , on Oct. 28, 2024, pursuant to the Court's July 15, 2024,
Scheduling Order and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3), for an order certifying the following four classes:
1. The Nationwide Consumer "Run & Drive" Class:
"All Basic and Premier Members of Copart, Inc. who reside,
are
incorporated, or have their principal place of business in
the
United States ("Nationwide Members") and who between Sept.
11,
2015 through the date of class certification in this action
(the
"Class Period") purchased from Copart an automobile, truck,
recreation vehicle or other motor vehicle that (a) at the
time
of purchase was located in the State of California, (b) was
described in the vehicle listing on Copart's online website
as
"run and drive," and (c) at the time of pick-up or delivery
did
not run or could not be driven."
2. The Nationwide "ERV" Class:
"All Nationwide Members who during the Class Period purchased
from Copart a Vehicle that (a) at the time of purchase was
located in the State of California, (b) had a vehicle listing
on
Copart's online website that included an "Estimated Retail
Value," and (c) was sold with a salvage title."
3. The California "Run & Drive" Class:
"All Basic and Premier Members of Copart who reside, are
incorporated, or have their principal place of business, in
California ("California Members") and who between during the
Class Period purchased from Copart a Vehicle that (a) at the
time of purchase was located outside the State of California,
(b) was described in the vehicle listing on Copart's online
website as "run and drive," and (c) at the time of pick-up or
delivery did not run or could not be driven.
4. The California "ERV" Class:
"All California Members who during the Class Period purchased
from Copart a Vehicle that (a) at the time of purchase was
located outside the State of California, (b) had a vehicle
listing on Copart's online website that included an
"Estimated
Retail Value," and (c) was sold with a salvage title."
The Plaintiff further moves for an order pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(g) appointing LegalGP and Fleischman Bonner &
Rocco LLP as class counsel.
Copart is a global provider of online vehicle auction and
remarketing services to automotive resellers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=av60YY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitch Kalcheim, Esq.
LEGALGP
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 980-7749
E-mail: mhk@legalgp.com
- and -
James Bonner, Esq.
FLEISCHMAN BONNER & ROCCO LLP
317 George Street, Suite 320
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Telephone: (646) 415-1399
Facsimile: (908) 524-0145
E-mail: jbonner@fbrllp.com
CRAFT REVOLUTION: Bell Seeks FLSA Conditional Collective Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA ELIZABETH BELL, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CRAFT
REVOLUTION, LLC d/b/a ARTISANAL BREWING VENTURES; et al. Case No.
3:24-cv-00012-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting conditional collective certification of the
Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims against the
Defendant.
In particular, the Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the
following class:
"All current and former Tipped Employees who have worked for
the Defendant in the United States within the statutory period
covered by the Plaintiff's Complaint and elect to opt-in to
this
action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (the
"Collective
Class")."
As set forth in the accompanying memorandum, the Plaintiff and
members of the proposed Collective Class are, by operation of the
Defendant's uniform policies and procedures, similarly situated and
thereby warrant granting conditional collective certification.
In support of this Motion, the Plaintiff submits a memorandum of
law, the Declaration of Gerald D. Wells, III, and exhibits thereto
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fmmA5i at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
Robert J. Gray, Esq.
CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
Malvern, PA 19355
Telephone: (610) 822-3700
Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
rgray@cwglaw.com
- and -
J. Alexander Heroy, Esq.
JAMES, MCELROY & DIEHL, P.A.
525 North Tryon Street, Suite 700
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 372-9870
Facsimile: (704) 333-5508
E-mail: aheroy@jmdlaw.com
CROWNSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Sep. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in CrowdStrike Holdings,
Inc. ("CrowdStrike" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CRWD) of a class
action securities lawsuit.
CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of
CrowdStrike investors who were adversely affected by alleged
securities fraud between November 29, 2023 and July 29, 2024.
Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a
member of our team:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/crowdstrike-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=93850&wire=4
CRWD investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (1) CrowdStrike had
instituted deficient controls in its procedure for updating the
Company's main product software, Falcon and was not properly
testing updates to Falcon before rolling them out to customers; (2)
this inadequate software testing created a substantial risk that an
update to Falcon could cause major outages for a significant number
of the Company's customers; and (3) such outages could pose, and in
fact ultimately created, substantial reputational harm and legal
risk to CrowdStrike. As a result of these materially false and
misleading statements and omissions, CrowdStrike stock traded at
artificially high prices during the Class Period.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in CrowdStrike during the
relevant time frame, you have until September 30, 2024 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share
in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
There is no cost or obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
DAVIDSBEENHERE.COM LLC: Mobile Website Inaccessible, Lucius Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
WINDY LUCIUS, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. DAVIDSBEENHERE.COM LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-22864 (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2024) seeks injunctive
relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs, pursuant to
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as
amended.
The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for offering and
maintaining a mobile website, https://dbh-store.com/, (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 like her. 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. The
Plaintiff attempted to access and/or utilize Defendant's mobile
website, but was unable to, and she continues to be unable to enjoy
full and equal access to the mobile website and/or understand the
content therein because numerous portions of the mobile website do
not interface with VoiceOver screen reader software, says the
suit.
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," a place of public
accommodation as defined by the ADA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 351-2014
E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com
legal@cunninghampllc.com
DELTA AIR: Passengers Seeks Massive Computer Outage Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Inc. reports that Delta Air Lines was sued by passengers who
complained that the carrier refused to offer full refunds after
delaying or canceling their flights in the wake of last month's
massive computer outage.
The proposed class action was made public in Atlanta federal court,
after the July 19 outage disrupted airlines, banks, hospitals and
emergency lines.
Passengers accused Delta of breach of contract for failing to
provide automatic refunds, and providing partial refunds only if
they signed waivers against pursuing further legal claims.
They also said Delta should compensate them for the cost and
inconvenience of rebooking with other airlines, hotels and food,
and from being separated from their luggage.
One of the four plaintiffs, John Brennan of Florida, said he and
his wife missed a $10,000 anniversary cruise after being stranded
in Atlanta on a layover, but Delta offered just $219.45 in
compensation.
The lawsuit said the airline's "unfair, unlawful, and
unconscionable practices resulted in Delta unjustly enriching
itself at the expense of its customers."
Delta declined to comment on the lawsuit, but has said passengers
whose travel was disrupted can request and receive refunds, and
seek compensation for incidental costs.
Delta's passengers remained stranded, waiting in lines for days
trying to get to their destinations," Joseph Sauder, a lawyer for
the plaintiffs, said in an email. "When our clients sought refunds,
Delta again failed to deliver."
The outage stemmed from a flawed software update from the
cybersecurity company CrowdStrike that crashed more than 8 million
computers worldwide and affected many Microsoft customers.
Disruptions subsided for many U.S. carriers but persisted at Delta,
leading to more than 6,000 cancellations.
CrowdStrike, Microsoft and Delta have since argued publicly over
who is to blame and should pay the bills.
Delta Chief Executive Ed Bastian estimated on July 31 that the
outage cost his Atlanta-based carrier about $500 million.
Passengers filed a separate class action against CrowdStrike also
seeking damages.
The Austin, Texas-based company has said it was neither grossly
negligent nor at fault for Delta's problems.
The case is Bajra et al v Delta Air Lines, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Georgia, No. 24-03477. [GN]
DELTA STAR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wilson Suit Extended to Oct. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order extending the time for
the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification:
1. Plaintiff's time to file his motion for class certification
is
continued by about 45 days, to Oct. 3, 2024.
2. Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification
shall be filed on or before Nov. 2, 2024.
3. Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class
certification shall be filed on or before Dec. 2, 2024.
Case Event Filing Date/Disclosure
Deadline/Hearing Date
Updated joint case-management-conference Jan. 30, 2025
statement
Further case-management conference Feb. 6, 2025
Hearing on class-certification motion Dec. 19, 2024
(motion filed Oct. 3, 2024, opposition
filed Nov. 2, 2024, reply filed Dec. 2,
2024) or further case-management conference
Non-expert discovery completion date Apr. 17, 2025
Expert disclosures required by Federal May 17, 2025
Rules of Civil Procedure
Expert discovery completion date July 17, 2025
Meet and confer re pretrial filings Sept. 17, 2025
Final pretrial conference Oct. 22, 2025
Trial Dec. 1, 2025
On Dec. 14, 2022, the Parties entered into a Joint Stipulation
extending Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class
certification.
On Aug. 17, 2023, the Parties entered into another Joint
Stipulation extending Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for
class certification.
On May 21, 2024, the Parties entered into another Joint Stipulation
extending Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class
certification.
Delta manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile transformers,
and mobile substations.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GmL5Ld at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Talia Lux, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
statavos@justicelawcorp.com
tlux@justicelawcorp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
Olga Savage, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (650) 645-9000
Facsimile: (650) 235-0398
E-mail: Tyler.Paetkau@huschblackwell.com
Olga.savage@huschblackwell.com
DELTA STAR: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the time for the
Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification:
1. Plaintiff's time to file his motion for class certification
is
continued by about 45 days, to Oct. 3, 2024.
2. Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification
shall be filed on or before Nov. 2, 2024.
3. Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class
certification shall be filed on or before Dec. 2, 2024.
The Defendant needs additional time to complete the timekeeping
data production. The Defendant's counsel has been working
diligently to complete the production and apologizes to the Court
and Plaintiff for the delay, which was caused by the format of the
records and certain ongoing medical issues suffered by
Defendant’s counsel over the past several months.
On Dec. 14, 2022, the Parties entered into a Joint Stipulation
extending Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class
certification. The Parties agreed that Plaintiff was entitled to
the extension because Defendant needed additional time to prepare
and serve its production of time and payroll records for the
agreed-upon representative sampling of 55% of the putative class.
Delta Star manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile
transformers, and mobile substations.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t136n3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Talia Lux, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
statavos@justicelawcorp.com
tlux@justicelawcorp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
Olga Savage, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (650) 645-9000
Facsimile: (650) 235-0398
E-mail: Tyler.Paetkau@huschblackwell.com
Olga.savage@huschblackwell.com
DEZER INTRACOASTAL: Brito Sues over ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. DEZER INTRACOASTAL MALL LLC; and
POMODOROS PIZZA SUBS AND MORE I CORP. d/b/a POMODOROS PIZZA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22735-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2024)
is a class action arising from Defendants' failure to comply the
accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at Defendants' commercial property and
businesses. The barriers to access at the commercial property, and
businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's
ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his
safety in violation of the ADA, says the suit.
Dezer Intracoastal was and is a Florida limited liability company
headquartered in Sunny Isles Beach, FL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-Mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone:(305) 350-3103
E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
DREAM TEAM: Delivery Drivers Seek Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD FOLLEN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. DREAM TEAM PIZZA LLC, and JAMIE POULSEN, Case No.
4:24-cv-01101 (E.D. Mo., Aug. 9, 2024) is a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated
delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the suit.
DREAM TEAM PIZZA LLC is a privately owned and operated Domino's
Pizza franchise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colby Qualls, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street,
Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com
EBERLESTOCK USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Calcano Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. EBERLESTOCK USA LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06074
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2024) alleges that Eberlestock failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff’s
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because Defendant's interactive website, https://eberlestock.com,
including all portions thereof or accessed, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Defendant operates the Eberlestock online interactive Website
and retail store across the United States. This online interactive
Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation
because it is a sales establishment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
ERIC GARCETTI: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of Status Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEOPLE OF LOS ANGELES WHO
ARE UN-HOUSED, AS A CLASS REPRESENTED BY C. FINLEY, etc., v. ERIC
MICHAEL GARCETTI, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06003-DOC-KES (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order reconsidering
minute order denying damages class certification by
(1) naming Plaintiff Finley as a class representative, and
(2) reversing ruling that a damages model is required for a
damages
class certification
The Plaintiff contends that the court should reconsider its
certification order and (1) add plaintiff Finley as a class
representative and (2) certify a damages class, absent a model.
On July 31, the court determined which the Plaintiffs would be
class representatives and omitted plaintiff Finley and also ruled
that a damages model was required for a damages class
certification, and plaintiffs apply to correct those two rulings.
The Plaintiffs were not required to and did not propose any model,
and because they had no notice that a model vel non would be in
issue, they did not present any argument on that issue.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I6p94b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen Yagman, Esq.
YAGMAN + REICHMANN, LLP
333 Washington Boulevard
Venice Beach, CA 90292-5152
Telephone: (310)452-3200
E-mail: filing@yagmanlaw.net
FPL FOOD: Taylor Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
MARIE TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FPL FOOD LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00149-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.,July 17, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personal
identifiable information of its current and former employees,
including, but not limited to, name, address, Social Security
number, and employee benefits information.
On or before June 6, 2024, the Defendant learned of a data breach
on its network that occurred on or around May 30, 2024. However, on
or around July 1, 2024, Defendant only began notifying Plaintiff
and Class Members of the data breach. In addition, the notices that
Defendant sent to Plaintiff and Class Members did not disclose that
(i) the Play ransomware group had announced the data breach on its
dark web site, posted information exfiltrated during the data
breach on its website, and that the information had been viewed
hundreds of times, and (ii) whether the threat actor had demanded a
ransom and, if so, whether Defendant had refused to pay it.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of
implied contract, and declaratory judgment.
FPL Food LLC is the Southeast's leading family-owned producer of
fresh beef. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth Diamond, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN
200 Stephenson Ave, Suite 200
Savannah, GA 31405
Telephone: (912) 443-1006
E-mail: sdiamond@forthepeople.com
- and -
Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 229-4023
Facsimile: (813) 222-4708
E-mail: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MAXEY LAWFIRM, P.A.
107 N. 11th St. #402
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 448-1125
E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com
FUNKO INC: Settle Securities Class Suit for $2.1-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------
Cole Watson, writing for KidScreen, reports that collectibles
manufacturer Funko has agreed to pay more than US$2.1 million to
resolve class-action lawsuits in California and Delaware alleging
that the company misled shareholders and the public.
Plaintiffs filed the securities fraud cases last year, claiming
that the toyco's leadership team headed by former CEO Brian
Mariotti failed to disclose information about 28 separate issues
affecting Funko's operations between May 6, 2022 and March 1, 2023
(including inventory management, the write-off of slower-moving
products, two infrastructure project delays and lower-than-expected
sales figures), resulting in Funko's stock being artificially
inflated.
Shareholders have until October 17 to object to the settlement, and
the court has scheduled a hearing for November 15 to hopefully
confirm the final terms of the deal. If approved, each plaintiff
will be awarded US$2,500. Funko has also agreed to implement new
corporate governance measures to improve its relationship with
investors by rebuilding trust.
Earlier in May, Funko won a motion to dismiss a proposed
class-action lawsuit in Washington, where it faced the same claims.
The federal judge ruled that a majority of the toyco's statements
were classified as forward-looking statements, and that the
plaintiffs had failed to provide enough evidence that company
leadership had falsified information. [GN]
G1 THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Kahn Swick
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are investigating G1 Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: GTHX), relating to
its proposed merger with Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"). Under the
terms of the proposal, KSF will commence a tender offer to purchase
GTHX stock at a price of $7.15 per share.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/g1-therapeutics-inc/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
GEICO INDEMNITY: Shiloah Sues Over Breach of Contracts
------------------------------------------------------
RENATA SHILOAH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
6:24-cv-06447 (W.D.N.Y., July 17, 2024), accuses the Defendant of
breaching its contracts with Plaintiff and other Class members by
failing to pay the full applicable sales tax to Plaintiff and the
other Class members when they suffered total losses of their
vehicles. Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the New York
Insurance Regulation 64 and the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices
Statute.
According to the complaint, New York insurance regulations require
that an insurer with policy provisions requiring the payment of
Actual Cash Value pay all amounts for which the claimant can
reasonably be expected to pay to replace the total loss vehicle
with an item substantially identical to the damaged vehicle,
including sales tax. However, the Defendant systematically
underpaid Plaintiff and thousands of other putative Class members
under the policy. Moreover, the Defendant owes its insureds for ACV
losses for total loss vehicles insured with comprehensive and
collision coverage, says the suit.
GEICO Indemnity Company is a foreign corporation insurance company
headquartered in Chevy Chase, MD. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
Kaitlyn M. Burns, Esq.
FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
29 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10006-3205
Telephone: (212) 952-0014
E-mail: jkravec@fdpklaw.com
rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com
kburns@fdpklaw.com
- and -
429 Fourth Avenue
Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-8400
Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
- and -
Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
Andrea Clisura, Esq.
VOZZOLO LLC
499 Route 304
New City, NY 10956
Telephone: (201) 630-8820
Facsimile: (201) 604-8400
E-mail: avozzolo@vozzolo.com
aclisura@vozzolo.com
- and -
345 Route 17 South
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
Telephone: (201) 630-8820
Facsimile: (201) 604-8400
Email: avozzolo@vozzolo.com
- and -
Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com
service@normandpllc.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Approves $12-Mil. Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a $12 million settlement
in a class action lawsuit against General Motors (GM) over
defective ignition switches in vehicles, which caused numerous
accidents and fatalities.
The lawsuit, initiated by plaintiffs in 2014, alleged that GM was
aware of the ignition switch defects as early as 2002 but failed to
take action until 2014. The defects caused the ignition switches to
unexpectedly move from the "on" position to "accessory" or "off,"
resulting in a loss of power steering, power braking, and airbags.
Despite GM's denials of the allegations, the company agreed to a
settlement after extensive mediation and negotiations.
The settlement involves separate payments: $12 million for the
settlement fund to compensate class members and an additional $4.4
million for plaintiffs' legal fees, including taxes and
disbursements. The legal fees, negotiated separately, do not impact
the amount available to the claimants.
The class action covered three proceedings: one in Ontario and two
in Quebec. In Ontario, an order in 2016 consolidated several
related actions into one. The Quebec actions were judicially
suspended pending the outcome of the Ontario case.
The defective vehicles recalled in February 2014 were claimed to
have ignition switches prone to shifting out of the "run" position,
which could disable essential systems like power steering and
airbags. The plaintiffs contended that these defects made the
vehicles inherently dangerous, leading to serious injuries and
fatalities.
The settlement follows a similar case in the United States, where
GM agreed to a $121 million settlement for similar claims. In
Canada, the plaintiffs sought compensation for three groups: those
injured or killed in accidents involving defective vehicles, family
members with derivative claims, and those who suffered economic
losses due to the defects.
The Superior Court recognized the significant litigation risks and
challenges in proving GM's liability, particularly given the
company's 2008 restructuring and the insolvency of its predecessor,
General Motors Corporation. The proposed settlement reflects these
risks, with compensation per vehicle owner expected to be modest.
Despite the modest compensation, the settlement provides
substantive relief to claimants and avoids prolonged litigation.
The court found the settlement reasonable, noting no objections and
only a few opt-outs from the class members. The plaintiffs'
counsel's fees were deemed fair, representing about 19 percent of
the total recovery. The court's decision allows for the
distribution of settlement funds to eligible claimants, bringing
closure to a long-standing issue. [GN]
GOODYEAR TIRE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alfonso Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO ALFONSO, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY d/b/a GOODYEAR
COMMERCIAL TIRE & SERVICE CENTERS, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-22719 (S.D. Fla., July 17, 2024) seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Defendant employed Plaintiff Alfonso as a non-exempt, hourly,
full-time employee, from on or about January 1, 2018, through
approximately March 15, 2019, or more than five years. Plaintiff
was paid for overtime hours at the correct rate, but he was not
paid for all his overtime hours. During his employment with
Defendant, the Plaintiff did not take bonafide lunchtime breaks.
However, the Defendant improperly and automatically deducted 2.5
hours in weeks of five days and 3 hours in weeks of six days as
lunchtime from compensable time., says the suit.
Based in Florida, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is engaged in
new and used tire business. The company also provides tire-related
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
GRIID INFRASTRUCTURE: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to CleanSpark
------------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating GRIID Infrastructure, Inc. (Nasdaq: GRDI ), relating
to its proposed sale to CleanSpark, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, GRIID Infrastructure shareholders will receive shares of
CleanSpark in an all-stock transaction based upon an exchange
ratio.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/griid-infrastructure-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]
GSE SYSTEMS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Pelican Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating GSE Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: GVP ), relating to its
proposed merger with Pelican Energy Partners. Under the terms of
the agreement, GSE Systems shareholders will receive $4.10 in cash
per share they own.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/gse-systems-inc/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Schelhas Seeks Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN SCHELHAS,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. HACKENSACK
MERIDIAN HEALTH, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02466-CCC-SDA (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff will ask the Court on Sept. 3, 2024, for an Order
granting conditional certification of a collective action and
court-authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).
Hackensack Meridian is a network of healthcare providers in New
Jersey.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GAobHs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-4635
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
William M. Hogg, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
whogg@mybackwages.com
- and -
William C. Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
HEALTH CAREER: Roberson Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY ROBERSON, et al.,
v. HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE LLC, et al., Case No. 9:22-cv-81883-RAR
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Ryon McCabe recommends that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification be granted in part and denied
in part as follows:
1. As to Count 1, the Court recommends the following modified
class
be certified:
"All students who enrolled in the RN Program at HCI on or
after
May 14, 2021, and who signed a version of the enrollment
agreement marked "rev. 01/27/2020." "
2. As to Count 2, the Court recommends that no class be
certified.
3. As to Count 3, the Court recommends the following modified
class
be certified:
"All students who enrolled in the RN Program at HCI after
Sept.
1, 2019, who also entered into a retail installment contract,
and who did not graduate."
4. As to Count 4, the Court recommends the following modified
class
be certified:
"All students who enrolled in the RN Program at HCI on or
after
May 14, 2021, and who signed a version of the enrollment
agreement marked "rev. 01/27/2020.""
5. As to Count 5, the Court recommends that no class be
certified.
6. As to Count 6, the Court recommends the following modified
class
be certified:
"All class members who received a CIE Form 609a for the RN
Program operating under NCLEX code 704146."
7. As to Count 7, the Court recommends that no class be
certified.
8. As to Count 8, the Court recommends the following class be
certified:
"All class members who enrolled in the Capstone nursing
course
and paid for VATI after Sept. 1, 2019.
9. As to Count 9, the Court recommends the following class be
certified:
"All Black class members who took out federal, private,
and/or
institutional student loans to pay for their education."
10. As to Count 9, the Court recommends the following class be
certified:
"All Black class members who took out federal, private,
and/or
institutional student loans to pay for their education."
The parties shall have 14 days from the date of being served with a
copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written
objections, if any, with United States District Judge Rodolfo A.
Ruiz,
The case is a putative class action against a for-profit nursing
school. The operative complaint alleges the following counts
against the various Defendants, Health Career Institute LLC
("HCI"), its parent company, Florian Education Investors LLC
("Florian"), and the chief executive of both organizations, Steven
W. Hart:
-- Count 1 Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act
("FDUTPA")
-- Count 2 FDUTPA Violation based on Misrepresentation of
Educational Services Provided against all Defendants
-- Count 3 FDUTPA Violation based on Unauthorized Retail
Installment
Contracts ("RIC") against all Defendants"
-- Count 4 Breach of Contract based on Grading and Advancement
against HCI and Florian
-- Count 5 Breach of Contract based on Clinical Placement against
HCI and Florian
-- Count 6 FDUTPA Violation based on "New" Registered Nurse
("RN")
Program against all Defendants
-- Count 7 FDUTPA Violation based on Withholding Advancement and
Transcripts from Students for Defendants" Financial Gain
against
all Defendants
-- Count 8 FDUTPA Violation based on Virtual-ATI ("VATI") Course
against all Defendants
-- Count 9 Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), 15 U.S.C.
section
1691 et seq. against HCI Count 10 Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000d et seq. against HCI
A copy of the Court's report & recommendation dated Aug. 5, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4m5tOW
at no extra charge.[CC]
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Davis-Jones Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN DAVIS-JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. HEALTHEQUITY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00572-DAK (D.
Utah, Aug. 9, 2024) is a class action against HealthEquity for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated customers' personally identifiable information
and protected health information, including names, addresses,
telephone numbers, employee IDs, employers, Social Security
numbers, health card numbers, health plan member numbers, dependent
information, HealthEquity benefit types, diagnoses, prescription
details, and payment card information, and/or HealthEquity account
types, from criminal hackers.
On August 9, 2024, HealthEquity filed official notice of a hacking
incident with the Office of the Maine Attorney General. Under state
and federal law, organizations must report breaches involving PHI
within at least 60 days.
On or about the same day, HealthEquity also sent out data breach
letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a
result of the hacking incident.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach contained
highly sensitive customer data, representing a gold mine for data
thieves. The data included, but is not limited to, Social Security
numbers, personal identifiable information, and personal health
information that HealthEquity collected and maintained, says the
suit.
HealthEquity is a health savings account management company that as
of July 31, 2022, managed 7,500,000 HSA accounts across the United
States.[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
E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com
ahoidal@mohtrial.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
HIGH TIMES: Investors Sue Over Mismanagement of Investment Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Stevens, writing for Business of Cannabis, reports that High
Times Holding Corp., which entered receivership in May, 2024, is
now being sued by investors who want their money back.
A class action lawsuit was filed on June 27 in Delaware against the
long-running cannabis publication by two former investors, Mark and
Jill Donius.
The lawsuit claims the company mishandled investors' funds.
Specifically, it alleges that High Times failed to properly manage
the $5,500 investment made by the Doniuses
The couple sent the money to Prime Trust, which was meant to act as
an escrow agent, expecting it to be transferred to Equiniti Trust
Company to manage their shares.
According to Green Market Report, which first reported on the
lawsuit, the Doniuses received correspondence from High Times in
March 2023, stating that their investment had been cancelled, and
their money would be refunded.
However, the pair allege that no refund was ever received.
Although High Times argued at the time that the blame lay with
Prime Trust, the lawsuit is taking aim squarely at High Times.
Prime Trust, typically a digital assets custodian, received a
cease-and-desist order in June 2023 from Nevada's Financial
Institutions Division for failing to safeguard customer assets.
Shortly thereafter, Prime Trust filed for bankruptcy, citing no
accounting of High Times investor funds in escrow.
The lawsuit, which includes at least 40 investors, claims High
Times failed to provide proper instructions to Prime Trust. Another
investor, who bought shares in 2020, reported similar issues with V
Stock Transfer and alleged bad faith from High Times.
It comes just weeks after the 50-year-old publication put its
assets up for sale as it scrambled to raise funds to pay its
creditors.
Greenlife Business Group, which is handled the sale, called for
offers ahead of May 17, by which time any assets without bids will
be put up for auction.
The property on offer included the intellectual property, including
branding, domain name, and URLs for its flagship High Times
magazine, Dope Magazine, Culture Magazine, alongside its famous
Cannabis Cup and Chalice Cup events brands. [GN]
IDAHO: Court OK's Plaintiffs' Bid for Temporary Restraining Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBINSON, et al., v. RAUL
LABRADOR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State
of Idaho; et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00306-DCN (D. Idaho), the Hon.
Judge David Nye entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is
granted.
2. The Court takes under advisement the issues of class
certification and preliminary injunction. A separate decision
on
those matters will issue later.
3. Idaho Code section 18-8601 is held in abeyance for the time
being only as to the three named plaintiffs and the proposed
class of individuals who are incarcerated persons in the
custody
of IDOC who have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, were
receiving
hormone therapy, and whose hormone therapy was tapered or
discontinued as a result of the enforcement of Idaho Code
section 18-8601.
Previously, on July 1, 2024, the Court issued a Memorandum Decision
and Order that granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order ("TRO"). The Court specifically limited the TRO to only the
named Plaintiffs in this case.
In addition to the three named Plaintiffs who are covered by the
Court's prior TRO, the class is defined as:
"all incarcerated persons in the custody of IDOC who have a
diagnosis of gender dysphoria, were receiving hormone therapy,
and
whose hormone therapy was tapered or discontinued as a result
of
the enforcement of Idaho Code section 18-8601."
Idaho Code section 18-8901 is still in effect and enforceable for
other purposes and as to other individuals not within the proposed
class.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YhuiOV at no extra
charge.[CC]
INTEL CORP: Faces Another Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Tobias Mann, writing for The Register, reports that over the past
few weeks, Intel has found itself in a mess of legal trouble over
everything from CPUs that slowly fry themselves to allegations it
misled investors about the chipmaker's well-being.
While these lawsuits will perhaps save the corporation's lawyers
from CEO Pat Gelsinger's chopping block, the stock sell-off spurred
by the decision to discontinue its quarterly dividend and slash its
global workforce by at least 15 percent is, you guessed it, now at
the center of yet another legal battle.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in northern California
Wednesday, August 7, the Construction Laborer's Pension Trust of
Greater St Louis alleged both Gelsinger and Intel CFO David Zinsner
repeatedly hoodwinked investors about the health of Intel's
fledgling foundry business.
Since the ousting of Bob Swan as chief exec in 2021, Gelsinger has
aspired to transform the x86 titan into a contract manufacturing
powerhouse second only to Taiwan's TSMC. These efforts have
included massive investments in fabs across Arizona, Ohio, New
Mexico, Ireland, Germany, and Israel totaling tens of billions of
dollars.
The plaintiffs, who are seeking class-action status against Intel
and its executive leadership, hope to make the case that between
January 25 and August 1 this year, Gelsinger and Zinsner made
misleading statements that misrepresented the health of the corp's
foundry unit, inflating its share price in the process.
Over the past few years Intel executives have repeatedly predicted
that its foundry business would contribute to a 60 percent gross
margin and 40 percent operating margin, the suit contends.
"Unbeknownst to investors, however, Intel's foundry business was
floundering, costing billions of dollars more than investors had
been led to believe even while revenue growth in the division
actually declined," the complaint reads.
As we reported earlier, much of this came to light in early April
when Intel revealed its foundry business had slumped in 2023,
leading to a $7 billion operating loss, with Gelsinger warning
investors that 2024 would be nastier.
"As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of Intel stock, plaintiff
and other class members . . . have suffered significant losses and
damages for which they seek redress through this action," the
complaint reads. In other words, the pension fund bought into
Intel's stock, based on the manufacturer's claims, and now that as
that stock is falling in value, its investment is tanking. These
shareholders want something done about it.
In addition to class action status, the lawsuit is seeking
compensatory damages along with whatever other relief the courts
deem appropriate.
The lawsuit comes less than a week after Intel posted a $1.6
billion loss and announced it was laying off 15 percent or more of
its workforce -- amounting to more than 16,000 workers -- and was
suspending its quarterly dividend beginning in Q4 in a bid to cut
spending by $10 billion in 2025.
Intel's share price went off a cliff, plummeting roughly 26 percent
in the wake of the revelation. It currently stands at $20.49
apiece, down 42 percent over the past year, and down 55 percent
over five years.
The Register reached out to Intel for comment; we'll let you know
if we hear anything back.
Intel's legal trouble is piling up
This isn't the first case alleging Intel execs misled investors. In
fact, this latest lawsuit closely mirrors one brought by
Stourbridge Investments in late June.
Both cases argued that Intel management had made "materially false
and misleading statements" related to the success of its foundry
investments, resulting in steep drops in the value of investments
made in the Xeon giant.
On the product side of the business, Intel is also taking
significant heat over its 13th-and 14th-gen Raptor Lake Core
desktop processors, which are experiencing crashes or outright
death caused by excessive voltage being delivered to the CPUs. A
microcode update this month is promised to correct that.
While Intel hopes that patch will prevent further damage and
instability, and will be extending warranties by a further two
years, that hasn't stopped several law firms from exploring class
action suits against the x86 giant seeking compensation for those
impacted by the engineering blunder.
Earlier this month Abington Cole + Ellery became one of the first
to invite owners of Intel's 13th and 14th-gen Raptor Lake parts to
join a proposed class action. Less than a week later, another law
firm, Kaplan Gore, announced it too was exploring the possibility
of a class action against Intel.
One bright spot in all of this is that last week Intel received a
small victory when the High Court of England and Wales sided with
the chip giant in a multinational patent dispute brought by R2
semiconductor.
R2 had alleged the x86 goliath had infringed on its voltage
regulation tech, but upon further inspection, the judge determined
the patent in question was invalid. But, while Intel was vindicated
in that case, similar patent cases in Germany, France, and Italy
are still ongoing. [GN]
INTEL CORPORATION: Faces Securities Suit Over 26% Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST OF GREATER ST. LOUIS, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated v. INTEL CORPORATION,
PATRICK P. GELSINGER, and DAVID ZINSNER, Case No. 3:24-cv-04807
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2024) is a securities class action on behalf of
all purchasers of Intel common stock between Jan. 25, 2024, and
Aug. 1, 2024, inclusive.
The Class Period begins on Jan. 25, 2024. On that date, Intel
issued a press release announcing the Company's fourth fiscal
quarter and full-year ended Dec. 30, 2023. The release highlighted
the purported success of the Company's various business units,
including most notably Intel Foundry Services ("IFS") which was
reportedly "up 63%" versus the prior year period.
On April 2, 2024, shockingly, Intel revealed that its foundry
business had suffered $7 billion in losses and a dismal negative
37% operating margin in 2023. Both metrics were substantially worse
than the unit had experienced in either fiscal 2022 or 2021,
undermining defendants' Class Period statements regarding the
trajectory of the business and its contributions to the Company's
overall profitability.
Thereafter, on April 25, 2024, Intel surprised investors again by
revealing that Intel's foundry segment revenue had declined 10%
year-over-year during the first fiscal quarter of 2024, while the
unit suffered an approximately $2.5 billion quarterly loss.
Finally, on Aug. 1, 2024, Intel revealed that the problems
surrounding its foundry business were far more severe than
previously disclosed. In connection with reporting its fiscal
second quarter of 2023 results, Intel stated that its foundry
segment's revenue had fallen sequentially to $4.3 billion even as
segment operating losses continued to climb. Intel further
disclosed it was on track to achieve only between $12.5 billion and
$13.5 billion in revenue for its third fiscal quarter of 2024, well
below consensus analyst estimates of $14.4 billion, and which
represented an 8% decline from the prior comparable year period at
the midpoint.
On this news, the price of Intel stock fell from $29.05 per share
at market close on Aug. 1, 2024 to $21.48 per share by market close
on Aug. 2, 2024, a decline of 26% on abnormally high volume of over
300 million shares traded. The decline was reportedly the worst
daily performance of Intel stock since at least 1985.
As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of Intel stock, plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies against Intel and certain of
Intel's current senior executives under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
The Plaintiff Construction Laborers Pension Trust purchased and
acquired Intel common stock during the Class Period and has been
damaged thereby.
Intel is a global integrated design manufacturer ("IDM") for
central processing units ("CPUs"), semiconductor chips, and related
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
INTER-CON SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Figueroa Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of similarly aggrieved
employees v. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., an active California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. (, Aug. 9, 2024)
arises out of the failure of the Defendant to provide meal periods
at the proper intervals, to provide rest periods at the proper
intervals, to pay all wages owed including overtime, to provide
accurate wage statements, to pay all wages owed to terminated or
separated employees in a timely manner, to pay all vacation pay
owed to terminated or separated employees, and to reimburse
employee business expenses under the California Labor Code.
The Defendant is engaged in the business of providing security
services.
The Plaintiff was hired in April of 2023 and separated on or about
May 30, 2023. At all times during said employment, the Plaintiff
had a non-exempt classification.
The Plaintiff was working at a Chase bank in Costa Mesa that was
serviced by Defendant.
At the time of his separation, the Plaintiff was not paid all his
wages, including all accrued and vested vacation pay.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
Haik Hacopian, Esq.
MOORADIAN LAW, APC
24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 487-1998
Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
haik@mooradianlaw.com
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Seeks to Seal Opposition to Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. (DA VINCI SURGICAL ROBOT ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting Interim Sealing Motion
with respect to Intuitive's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
Intuitive Surgical manufactures, and markets robotic products
designed to improve clinical outcomes of patients through minimally
invasive surgery.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KLRMrO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Allen Ruby, Esq.
ALLEN RUBY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
15559 Union Ave. 138
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Telephone: (408) 477-9690
E-mail: allen@allenruby.com
- and -
Joshua Hill, Esq.
Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq.
Paul D. Brachman, Esq.
William B. Michael, Esq.
Crystal L. Parker, Esq.
Daniel A. Crane, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 204-7420
E-mail: kgallo@paulweiss.com
pbrachman@paulweiss.com
wmichael@paulweiss.com
cparker@paulweiss.com
dcrane@paulweiss.com
jhill@paulweiss.com
- and -
Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq.
Sonya E. Winner, Esq.
Andrew Lazerow, Esq.
Ashley E. Bass, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
E-mail: kcahoy@cov.com
swinner@cov.com
alazerow@cov.com
abass@cov.com
IOVATE HEALTH: Ct. Dismisses Schoonover First Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILEY SCHOONOVER, v.
IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES U.S.A., INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01487-FLA-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an
order:
-- granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to
strike,
-- dismissing Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint without leave to
amend, and
-- denying Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and for Approval of
Class Notice Plan as moot.
Because the Plaintiff has been afforded previously an opportunity
to amend the Complaint to establish equitable jurisdiction, the
court finds amendment would be futile and grants the Motion as to
Plaintiff's claims for equitable relief without leave to amend.
Accordingly, the court strikes all parties and causes of action not
included in the original Complaint, including all causes of action
asserted by Warkentin and Freifeld and the putative classes they
seek to represent, and Plaintiff's request for actual damages under
the CLRA.
The Plaintiff initiated this class action lawsuit against the
Defendant on Feb. 13, 2020, alleging the Defendant sold powdered
nutritional supplement products in packaging that was deceptive
because it included non-functional slackfill.
On May 6, 2024, the court found the Plaintiff failed to allege
sufficiently the lack of an adequate remedy at law as required for
the court to exercise equitable jurisdiction and dismissed the
Complaint with leave to amend.
Iovate Health offers nutritional supplements products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WbcyxA at no extra
charge.[CC]
JAGUAR LAND: Rains et al. Sue Over Defective Windshields
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Rains, David Cerutti, Paige Bishop, Carlos Guidorizzi,
Heather Richards, and Brian Gresh, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Jaguar Land Rover
Automotive, PLC and Jaguar Land Rover Limited, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-07846 (D.N.J., July 18, 2024) arises out of Defendants'
defective 2020-2022 Land Rover Defender vehicles.
The Plaintiffs and the Classes were damaged because the said
vehicles contain defective windshields. They have reported that
their windshields failed for no reason at all. Others have reported
windshield failure as a result of circumstances that would not
cause a non-defective windshield to fail, such as a very slight
impact. The Defendants, however, have allegedly refused to repair
or replace the defective windshields under warranty, requiring
Plaintiffs and other vehicle owners pay hundreds or thousands of
dollars to repair the defect--even where the defect occurs nearly
immediately after they take possession of their vehicles.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert claims for fraudulent
concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty, and for
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Utah Consumer
Sales Practices Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the
California Unfair Competition Law, the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
Jaguar Land Rover Automotive, PLC manufactures and designs
automotive vehicles and sells them across the United States via
Jaguar Land Rover North America. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
JAMES RIVER GROUP: Continues to Defend Glantz Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
James River Group Holdings Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Glantz class suit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
On November 13, 2023, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf
of Paul Glantz against James River Group Holdings, Ltd. and certain
of its officers, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On January 12, 2024, both Mr.
Glantz and Madhav Ghimire, another individual shareholder, filed an
application with the court for appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and
on January 26, 2024 Mr. Glantz filed a notice of non-opposition to
Mr. Ghimire's competing motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff.
On March 25, 2024 the court entered an order appointing Mr. Ghimire
as lead plaintiff.
On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint
alleging that he acquired the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated pricing between May 2, 2023 and November 7,
2023, inclusive, that the Company knew and/or recklessly
disregarded that it had improperly accounted for reinsurance
premiums and did not have effective internal control over financial
reporting, and that as a result, he suffered unspecified damages,
and seeking unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees and such
other relief as the court may deem proper.
On July 23, 2024 the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
James River Group Holdings, Ltd. is an exempted holding company
registered in Bermuda, organized for the purpose of acquiring and
managing insurance and reinsurance entities. It owns five insurance
companies based in the United States focused on specialty insurance
niches and a Bermuda-based reinsurance company.
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Continues to Defend DEI Class Suit in Quebec
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeld-Wen Holding Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Developpement Emeraude class suit in the
Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Canada.
On May 15, 2020, Developpement Emeraude Inc., on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and Masonite in the Superior Court of
the Province of Quebec, Canada, which was served on us on September
18, 2020 ("the Quebec Action").
The putative class consists of any person in Canada who, since
October 2012, purchased one or more interior molded doors from the
Company or Masonite. The suit alleges an illegal conspiracy between
the Company and Masonite to agree on prices, the distribution of
market shares and/or the production levels of interior molded doors
and that the plaintiffs suffered damages in that they were charged
and paid higher prices for interior molded doors than they would
have had to pay but for the alleged anti-competitive conduct.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.
On September 9, 2020, Kate O'Leary Swinkels, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
against the Company and Masonite in the Federal Court of Canada,
which was served on us on September 29, 2020 (the "Federal Court
Action").
The Federal Court Action makes substantially similar allegations to
the Quebec Action and the putative class is represented by the same
counsel.
In February 2021, the plaintiff in the Federal Court Action issued
a proposed Amended Statement of Claim that replaced the named
plaintiff, Kate O'Leary Swinkels, with David Regan.
The plaintiff has sought a stay of the Quebec Action while the
Federal Court Action proceeds.
On July 14, 2023, the Company entered into an agreement in
principle with class counsel to resolve both actions for an
immaterial amount, which the Company recorded in the second quarter
of 2023.
The proposed settlement remains subject to formal settlement
documentation and court approval.
The Company continues to believe the plaintiffs' claims lack merit
and denies any liability or wrongdoing for the claims made against
the Company.
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., along with its subsidiaries, is a
vertically integrated global manufacturer and distributor of
windows, doors, and other building products with operation
facilities located in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Mexico. Its
products are marketed primarily under the JELD-WEN brand name in
the U.S. and Canada and under JELD-WEN and a variety of acquired
brand names in Europe.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Brown BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled LASHARON BROWN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 2024CH05743, was removed from the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on July 26, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-06560 to the proceeding.
The complaint arises from Plaintiff's purported claims under the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. In particular,
Plaintiff alleges that JPMC violated BIPA by allegedly failing to
develop a public written policy for the retention and destruction
of biometric identifiers and biometric information; allegedly
collecting Plaintiff's biometric identifiers or biometric
information without providing notice and obtaining her written
consent; and allegedly disclosing or disseminating Plaintiff's
biometric identifiers or biometric information to third parties.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a national bank with its principal
place of business located in New York.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael R. Phillips, Esq.
Katharine P. Lennox, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60601-1818
Telephone: (312) 849-8100
Facsimile: (312) 849-3690
E-mail: mphillips@mcguirewoods.com
klennox@mcguirewoods.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Milan Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEIR MILAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, and KEIRCO, INC., a corporation, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, DBA CHASE BANK; and Does
1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 2024CUBC026141, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Ventura to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 26, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-06323 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs' complaint purports to seek damages, restitution,
injunctive relief, public injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs, and interest for the following claims: (1) violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies; (2) violation of the California
False Advertising Law; (3) violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law; and (4) breach of contract.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a national bank with its principal
place of business located in New York.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
Julieta Stepanyan, Esq.
Brianna M. Bauer, Esq.
STEPTOE LLP
2029 Century Park East, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
Telephone: (213) 439-9400
Facsimile: (213) 439-9598
KALEIDA HEALTH: Clearly Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROXANNE CLEARY, LISA
WENDLING, KIMBERLY MILLER, MARY CLARE BREIDENSTEIN, AND
ROBINCHILTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. KALEIDA HEALTH, KALEIDA HEALTH PENSION GROWTH PLAN,
KALEIDA HEALTH RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
KALEIDA HEALTH, AND JOHN DOES 1-40, Case No. 1:22-cv-00026-LJV-JJM
(W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2);
(2) appointing the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives;
(3) appointing Thomas & Solomon PLLC and Christen Archer
Pierrot,
Esq. as Class Counsel; and
(4) such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
Kaleida is a not-for-profit healthcare network that manages five
hospitals in the Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SAOMJM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
Adam T. Sanderson, Esq.
THOMAS & SOLOMON PLLC
693 East Avenue
Rochester, NY 14607
Telephone: (585) 272-0540
E-mail: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com
asanderson@theemploymentattorneys.com
KOHLS INC: Class Certification Order Entered in Witt Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON CHRISTIAN STEDMAN
WITT, v. KOHLS INC. Case No. 2:24-cv-01967-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered a class certification order:
1. Joint Brief:
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single,
fully
integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in
which
each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately
followed by the opposing party's/parties' response.
2. Citation to Evidence:
All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly
to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary
appendix,
or page and line number(s) of a deposition.
3. Unnecessary Sections:
The parties need not include a "procedural history" section,
since the court will be familiar with the procedural history.
4. Evidentiary Appendix:
The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed
appendix of declarations and written evidence.
5. Evidentiary Objections:
All necessary evidentiary objections shall be made in the
relevant section(s) of the joint brief.
Kohl's is an American department store retail chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZErmUP at no extra
charge.[CC]
LAGNIAPPE NATIONAL: Hartman Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY HARTMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LAGNIAPPE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company, Case No. 9:24-cv-80955-DMM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 7,
2024) is a collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to him who were
formerly or are currently classified as independent contractors in
Florida or other states.
For at least three years prior to filing of this complaint and
continuing thereafter, Lagniappe had a policy and practice of
misclassifying its construction-related employees as independent
contractors and depriving them of the benefit of overtime
compensation that the FLSA requires for hours worked in excess of
40 in a workweek.
Throughout his employment by Lagniappe, Mr. Hartman worked 45 or
more hours in each workweek but was allegedly never paid overtime
compensation.
Mr. Hartman was not in business for himself, he worked fulltime for
Lagniappe for more than a year on multiple projects at different
Florida job sites, and he depended on Lagniappe for income during
the term of his employment, the suit claims.
Pursuant to the FLSA, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated also seeks liquidated damages or
pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees
and costs from the Defendant.
Mr. Hartman was employed by the Defendant from July 2021 to March
2024 to provide construction-related services at job sites in
Florida.
Lagniappe is in the business of construction and remodeling,
primarily serving business clients in the senior housing
market.[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
Telephone: (954) 617-6017
Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Spradley Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle R. Spradley, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 203993266 (Fla.
11th Judicial Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., Aug. 4, 2024), is brought under
the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"),
On April 19, 2024, Defendant sent an electronic mail communication
to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the Debt.
Defendant sent the April 19, 2024 electronic mail communication to
Plaintiff at
3:27 a.m. in Plaintiff's time zone. Plaintiff's cellular telephone
chimes each time she receives an electronic mail communication. As
a result of Defendant's violative conduct, Plaintiff's phone chimed
at an unusual hour of the night.
The FCCPA provides: "In collecting consumer debts, no person shall:
Communicate with the debtor between the hours of 9 p.m and 8 a.m.
in the debtor's time zone without the paor consent of the debtor."
The Defendant's April 19, 2024 electronic mail communication is a
"communication" the FCCPA. The Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to Plaintiff between the hours of 9 p.m and 8 a.m. in
Plaintiffs time zone.
The Defendant did not have Plaintiff s prior consent to send her
electronic mail communications between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8
a.m. in her time zone. The Defendant did not have Plaintiff s prior
consent to send her any communications between the hours of 9 p.m.
and 8 a-nr in her time zone. As a result, Defendant violated the
FCCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is obligated, or allegedly obligated, to pay a debt
owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, Defendant.
The Defendant is one of the largest mortgage servicers in the
country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Davidson, Esq.
Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
- and -
Young Kim, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEYS
2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 270
Clearwater, FL 33762
Phone: (727) 216-3420
Fax: (727) 623-4611
Email: ykim@consumerlawattorneys.com
litigation@consumerlawattorneys.com
LANGUAGE LINE: Class Settlement in Oliveira Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON OLIVEIRA, et al.,
v. LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-02410-PCP
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order
granting preliminary approval of collective and class action
settlement.
1. The terms of the settlement reached by Named Plaintiffs and
Defendants set forth in the Settlement Agreement filed by the
Parties on June 12, 2024, with the Preliminary Approval
Motion,
are hereby preliminarily approved as being fair, reasonable
and
adequate.
2. The Court hereby grants conditional certification of the
following for settlement purposes only, finding that the
proposed Class/Collective meet the requirements set forth in
Rule 23 and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):
a. The FLSA Collective: Named Plaintiffs, Opt-In Plaintiffs,
and
all current and former employees employed by LLS or OLI as
Interpreters, or similarly titled employees, in the United
Staes (excluding Puerto Rico) during the FLSA Collective
Period; and
b. The California Class: Plaintiffs and all current and
former
employees employed by LLS or OLI as Interpreters, or
similarly titled employees, with a home address in the
State
of California according to Defendants’ records and who
worked
as nonexempt hourly-paid employees at any time during the
California Class Period.
3. The PAGA Gross Settlement Amount is preliminarily approved;
4. Brian S. Kabateck, Shant A. Karnikian, Jerusalem F. Beligan,
and
Sheri R. Lalehzarian of Kabateck LLP; James L. Simon of
Simon
Law Co.; and Michael L. Fradin of Fradin Law are appointed as
Class Counsel for the Class/Collective Members.
5. Named Plaintiffs Oliveira and Boyce are appointed as Class
Representatives for the FLSA Collective and California
Class.
6. The following briefing schedule will govern subsequent
proceedings in this Court:
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees: Sept. 14, 2024
-- Opposition to Plaintiffs motion for Oct. 23, 2024
Attorney's Fees:
-- Reply to Opposition of Plaintiffs' Oct. 29, 2024
Motion for Attorney's Fees:
-- Joint Motion for Final Approval: Nov. 28, 2024
-- Opposition to Motion for Final Dec. 13, 2024
Approval:
-- Reply to Opposition of Motion for Dec. 19, 2024
Final Approval:
-- Hearing on Joint Motion for Final Jan. 9, 2025
Approval and Plaintiffs' Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Costs:
The Plaintiffs were full-time interpreters for the defendants,
which offer interpreter services to consumers and hire interpreters
throughout the United States as nonexempt employees who are paid an
hourly wage and entitled to overtime pay.
The Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to pay them minimum
and overtime wages earned, failed to provide compliant rest and
meal breaks, failed to provide accurate wage statements, failed to
reasonably reimburse employees for business expenses, required
impermissible "off-the-clock" work, and engaged in unfair business
practices
Language Line offers telecommunications and technology interpreter
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=avVtxY at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEAD DOG: Sendak Sues Over Unlawful Reimbursement Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL ANDREW SLENDAK, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. LEAD DOG PIZZA, INC., and JOHN W.
ECKBURG, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03988-MGL (D.S.C., July 17,
2024) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and
similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its
Domino's stores.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately July
2021 to October 2023 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's
store located in Augusta, GA. Allegedly, the Defendants' delivery
driver reimbursement policy reimburses drivers on a per-mile basis,
but the per-mile reimbursement equates to below the Internal
Revenue Service's business mileage reimbursement rate or any other
reasonable approximation of the cost to own and operate a motor
vehicle. Moreover, the net effect of Defendants' flawed
reimbursement policy is that Defendants have willfully failed to
pay the federal minimum wage to their delivery drivers, says the
suit.
Lead Dog Pizza, Inc. owns and operates numerous Domino's franchise
stores in the US. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
CROMER BABB & PORTER LLC
115 Elk Avenue
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Telephone: (803) 328-0898
E-mail: jake@cromerbabb.com
LEGALZOOM.COM INC: Erasmus Fraud Suit Removed to D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RYAN ERASMUS, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC. d/b/a/
LEGALZOOM, and LEGALZOOM, INC.; BUSINESS LICENSES, LLC; and JOHN
DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. ESX-L-003775-24, was removed
from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County,
to the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey on July 17,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-07831 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the statute proscribing the
unauthorized practice of law.
LegalZoom.com, Inc. is an online legal technology and services
company based in California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher A. Rojao, Esq.
Gregory J. Hindy, Esq.
Ryan M. Savercool, Esq.
McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
Four Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 622-4444
Facsimile: (973) 624-7070
E-mail: crojao@mccarter.com
ghindy@mccarter.com
rsavercool@mccarter.com
LEIDOS INC: Parties Must Re-Notice Hearing on Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADUJAR MILLER et al., V.
LEIDOS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00931-PTG-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Hon.
Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles entered a class certification order
that:
-- The parties noticed the motion for Aug. 22, 2024, at 10:00 AM.
-- In the interests of fairness, efficiency, and justice, it is
hereby ordered that the parties re-notice the hearing for a
Thursday at 10:00 AM after Sept. 5,2024.
Leidos is an American defense, aviation, information technology,
and biomedical research company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tRmQad at no extra
charge.[CC]
LGBCOIN LTD: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC DE FORD, SUSAN BADER,
SHAWN R. KEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. JAMES KOUTOULAS, and LGBCoin, LTD, Case No.
6:22-cv-00652-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order extending their deadline to respond to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until 20 days from the
date the last Plaintiff is deposed, together with such other relief
this Court deems just and proper.
For the purposes of judicial economy and efficiency, the
undersigned request the extension of 20 days. The Defendants will
not agree to accommodate Plaintiffs, Eric De Ford and Shawn R. Key,
remote depositions due to the extensive amount of time these
Plaintiffs had to coordinate these depositions
Good cause exists for the requested extension of time to respond to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification given that the
Plaintiffs need additional time to depose Plaintiffs, which is
necessary to prepare a response. This request is not made in bad
faith, and no party will be prejudiced if the request is granted.
As of the present date, the Plaintiffs have filed four versions of
their complaint – Complaint; First Amended Complaint, which was
dismissed sua sponte; the Second Amended Complaint, in which all
but one Count against Mr. Koutoulas were dismissed; and the Third
Amended Complaint in which all Defendants other than Mr. Koutoulas
and LGBcoin, Ltd. were dismissed.
On March 29, 2024, the Court entered an Order on the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss granting in part, and denying in part,
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.
On April 5, 2024, the Court entered a paperless Order lifting the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act stay of discovery as
result of the Court's resolution of the motions to dismiss.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uXswHe at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Nicole Martell, Esq.
DI PIETRO PARTNERS, PLLC
901 East Las Olas Blvd, Suite 202
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 712-3070
Facsimile: (954) 337-3824
E-mail: nicole@ddpalaw.com
LHNH LAVISTA: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER LANZ, et al., v.
LHNH LAVISTA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05344-LMM (N.D. Ga.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the class
certification briefing deadlines as follows:
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due on Aug. 28,
2024.
Defendants' response to said motion is due within 30 days of the
filing of the class certification motion.
Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' response is due within 30 days
of
the filing of said response.
The parties assert that there is good cause for the above briefing
schedule and that said schedule will not result in unnecessary
delay.
During the pendency of the motion to strike and the Court's
jurisdictional inquiry, the Plaintiffs requested that the deadline
to file the motion for class certification be extended until 60
days after discovery commences. That motion was granted.
As a result, the current deadline to move for class certification
is Aug. 6, 2024. The local rules provide that a class certification
motion is generally due 90 days after the complaint is filed.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vbjtuV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas H. Dean, Esq.
DEAN THAXTON, LLC
601 E. 14th Avenue (31015)
Cordele, GA 31010
Telephone: (229) 271-9323
Facsimile (229) 271-9324
E-mail: doug@deanthaxton.law
The Defendants are represented by:
R. Matt Shoemaker, Esq.
JONES CORK, LLP
Truist Bank Building
435 Second Street, Fifth Floor
Macon, GA 31208
E-mail: matt.shoemaker@jonescork.com
LIFERX.MD INC: Discloses Info to Third Parties, Hedgeman Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER HEDGEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LIFERX.MD, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05519 (E.D.N.Y., Aug.
7, 2024) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all persons
who have visited the website liferx.md and booked an appointment
for Glucagon-like peptide-1 ("GLP-1") weight loss medication.
When consumers visit the Website, they must book an appointment to
determine whether they qualify for Defendant's weight loss
medication. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and members of the
putative class, and contrary to Defendant's own representations,
the Defendant allegedly discloses their personally identifiable
information (PII) to third parties for targeted advertising
purposes.
The Defendant shares consumers' personal information with several
advertising partners, including X Corp. (f/k/a Twitter, Inc.),
Pinterest, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Google, LLC, and Taboola,
Inc. The information shared by the Defendant allows these
advertising partners to know the identities of specific individuals
interested in purchasing GLP-1 medications. This allows these
companies, including the Defendant, to profit from this information
for targeted advertising purposes. The Defendant allgedly engages
in this deceptive conduct for its own profit at the expense of its
customers. Such disclosures are an invasion of privacy and lead to
harassing targeted advertising, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff therefore brings this action for legal and equitable
remedies resulting from Defendant's illegal actions.
In January 2024, the Plaintiff booked an appointment for GLP-1
medication through the Defendant's Website. When booking her
appointment, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with her personal
information, including her name, email address, and phone number.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Defendant disclosed her personal
information -- as well as her attempt to seek weight loss
medication -- to third parties for targeted advertising purposes.
After booking an appointment on Defendant's Website, the Plaintiff
allegedly began receiving targeted advertisements for similar
products and services.
LifeRx.md, Inc. is an online provider of GLP-1 weight loss
medication.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com
sbeck@bursor.com
LOEWS HOLLYWOOD: Cardenas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERIC CARDENAS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. LOEWS
HOLLYWOOD HOTEL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; LOEWS
HOTELS & CO, a business entity of unknown form; LOEWS CORPORATION,
a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV15653, 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 July 26, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-06342 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) failure
to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3)
failure to pay hourly wages and overtime; (4) failure to pay proper
vacation wages; (5) failure to provide accurate written wage
statements; (6) failure to timely pay all final wages; (7) failure
to indemnify; and (8) unfair competition.
Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC operates as a hotel.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ryan C. Bykerk, Esq.
Joseph M. Dietrich, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 732-6500
Facsimile: (949) 732-6501
E-mail: joe.dietrich@gtlaw.com
bykerkr@gtlaw.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Morales Sues Over Vaccine Mandate Policy
---------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD MORALES, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06010 (C.D. Cal., July 17,
2024) arises out of Defendant City of Los Angeles' mandatory
vaccination policy for employment.
In or about August 2021, the Defendants implemented a mandatory
COVID vaccine policy for its employees. However, Defendant
implemented a policy which failed to properly evaluate the
exemption request, and treated similarly situated employees
differently, denying the religious exemption request Plaintiff and
numerous other employees, in violations of their constitutional
rights, but granting it as to others similarly situated. As a
result of Defendant's wrongful policies, Plaintiff and many other
persons were wrongfully denied employment with Defendants.
On or about June 11, 2024, the Defendants ended their vaccine
mandate policy. However, Defendants did not offer to compensate
Plaintiff or the Class members who lost employment opportunities in
connection with the vaccine mandate. Accordingly, Plaintiff Morales
asserts claims for employment discrimination and for violations of
the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
City of Los Angeles is a California governmental entity. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Trevor Weinberg, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (213) 514-5681
Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
at@haffnerlawyers.com
tw@haffnerlawyers.com
LPL FINANCIAL: Peters Sues Over Cash Sweep Programs
---------------------------------------------------
DANIEL PETERS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LPL FINANCIAL LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01228-TWR-AHG (S.D. Cal., July 17, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, breach of
contract, and California Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and
other customers of LPL whose cash positions held in LPL accounts
were subject to Defendant's cash sweep programs. Defendant's cash
sweep programs automatically "swept" investors' cash out of their
accounts, on a daily basis, and deposited it into one of LPL's cash
sweep programs: ICA Program and the DCA Program.
LPL is a registered broker-dealer and Registered Investment Adviser
that offers brokerage and investment advisory services to its
nationwide client base. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sophia M. Rios, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 489-0300
E-mail: srios@bm.net
- and -
Micheal Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Andrew Abramowitz, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
aabramowitz@bm.net
- and -
Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
ROSCA SCARLATO LLC
2000 Auburn Dr. Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 946-7070
E-mail: arosca@rscounsel.law
- and -
Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
161 Washington Street, Suite 1025
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (216) 946-7070
E-mail: pscarlato@rscounsel.law
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Oct. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers or acquirers of lululemon athletica inc. (NASDAQ: LULU)
securities between December 7, 2023 and July 24, 2024, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until October 7, 2024 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff of the lululemon class action
lawsuit. Captioned Patel v. lululemon athletica inc., No.
24-cv-06033 (S.D.N.Y.), the lululemon class action lawsuit charges
lululemon and certain of lululemon's top executives with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the lululemon class action lawsuit, please provide
your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-lululemon-athletica-inc-class-action-lawsuit-lulu.html
You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal
of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the lululemon class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than October
7, 2024.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: lululemon is principally a designer, distributor,
and retailer of technical athletic apparel, footwear, and
accessories.
The lululemon class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) lululemon was struggling with
inventory allocation issues and color palette execution issues;
(ii) as a result, lululemon's Breezethrough product launch
underperformed; and (iii) consequently, lululemon was experiencing
stagnating sales in the Americas region.
The lululemon class action lawsuit further alleges that on March
21, 2024, lululemon disclosed that net revenue in the Americas grew
9% in the fourth quarter 2023 and 12% in the fiscal year 2023,
short of the 29% growth in the year-ago period and 12% growth in
the previous quarter. On this news, the price of lululemon stock
fell nearly 16%, according to the complaint.
Then, on July 24, 2024, the complaint further alleges that
Bloomberg reported that lululemon's new Breezethrough leggings
launch was "raising concern" with certain analysts, noting that the
launch had suffered from "inconsistent" inventory allocation and
pricing, with "‘certain locations carr[ying] Breezethrough
leggings while others didn't carry the new line,'" suggesting
"‘ongoing allocation-related issues.'" On this news, the price of
lululemon stock fell, according to the lululemon class action
lawsuit.
Finally, the complaint alleges that Bloomberg reported that a
lululemon spokesperson told the agency that lululemon "‘made the
decision to pause on sales [of the Breezethrough yoga wear] for now
to make any adjustments necessary to deliver the best possible
product experience.'" The lululemon class action lawsuit alleges
that on this news, the price of lululemon stock fell more than 9%
on July 25, 2024.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
lululemon securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the lululemon class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the lululemon
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the lululemon class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the lululemon class
action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of
the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities
fraud cases. Our Firm has been #1 in the ISS Securities Class
Action Services rankings for six out of the last ten years for
securing the most monetary relief for investors. We recovered $6.6
billion for investors in securities-related class action cases --
over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm in the last four
years. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the
largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys
have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
(800) 449-4900
info@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Parish of St. Mary Suit Removed to W.D. La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PARISH OF ST. MARY, CITY OF FRANKLIN, CITY OF NEW
IBERIA, AND JOHNNY GIBSON v. LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND AT&T
INC., Case No. 138575, was removed from the 16th Judicial District
Court for the Parish of St. Mary, State of Louisiana to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
Lafayette Division on July 26, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Louisiana assigned
Case No. 6:24-cv-01001 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants laid lead-wrapped cables
between the late 1800s and the 1960s as they built out telephone
service across the U.S. They assert that these cables are source of
significant environmental damage to Plaintiffs' and putative class
members' properties and that lead has dissipated into the soil and
underground water on the properties.
Lumen Technologies, Inc. is a telecommunications and technology
company that provides various integrated products and services to
businesses and residential customers in the U.S. and
internationally.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam B. Zuckerman, Esq.
Lauren Brink Adams, Esq.
William E. Wildman, III, Esq.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ, PC
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3600
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 566-5200
Facsimile: (504) 636-4000
E-mail: azuckerman@bakerdonelson.com
lbrink@bakerdonelson.com
wwildman@bakerdonelson.com
- and -
Hariklia Karis, Esq.
Robert B. Ellis, Esq
Mark J. Nomellini, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
333 W. Wolf Point
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 862-2000
Email: hkaris@kirkland.com
rellis@kirkland.com
mnomellini@kirkland.com
- and -
Jon David Kelley, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
4550 Travis Street
Dallas, TX 75205
Email: jon.kelley@kirkland.com
- and -
Adam K. Levin, Esq.
Lee C. Rarrick, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Telephone: (202) 637-5600
Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
E-mail: adam.levin@hoganlovells.com
lee.rarrick@hoganlovells.com
- and -
Megan R. Nishikawa, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 374-2300
Facsimile: (415) 374-2499
E-mail: megan.nishikawa@hoganlovells.com
LYNN GROUP: Alicea Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely
---------------------------------------------------
Richard Alicea, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. LYNN GROUP, INC. and TACONIC BUILDERS, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-05926 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2024), is brought against the
Defendants violation of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL") by
not paying their Manual Workers on a timely and weekly basis as
required.
The Plaintiff worked full time for Defendants, working at least 40
hours per week, being paid $22-25 per hour, paid on a bi-weekly
basis at all times. The Plaintiff was non-exempt in that he
performed manual labor tasks. Despite performing almost entirely
physical tasks and qualifying as a Manual Worker, under NYLL,
Defendants paid Plaintiff Alicea on a bi weekly basis. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated workers were not provided a means
of clocking in and out. Defendants' supervisors were responsible
for noting their workers arrival and departure times. Plaintiff
would provide the hours and worksites to Defendants supervisors at
the end of the week. Because of Defendants' improper compensation
policies, Plaintiff was deprived of timely and weekly pay, in
direct violation of the NYLL. Because of Defendants' improper
compensation policies, Plaintiff was deprived of pay, in direct
violation of the NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in June 2019 as
laborer.
The Defendants provide laborers, carpenters, and other workers to
build and renovate luxury residences such as townhouses,
apartments, and other high-end personal residences in New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 718-669-0714
Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
M&M TRANSPORT: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Barbery Says
------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN BARBERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. M&M TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-12042-LTS
(D. Mass., Aug. 7, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information.
On or around June 30, 2024, Defendant's network was accessed, and
the Plaintiff's Private Information was involved in the Data
Breach. The Defendant investigated the Data Breach and confirmed
that an unauthorized actor had access to files that included the
following: "name, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's
license information, I-9 information, and/or passport number.
Because of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value
of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects
of the attack and the substantial and imminent risk of identity
theft. The Plaintiff did not receive a notice from the Defendant
confirming his Private Information was involved in the Data Breach,
but instead learned from a third-party that his information was
stolen from the Defendant, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose
Private Information was compromised because of Defendant's failure
to:
(i) adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff
and Class Members;
(ii) warn the Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's
inadequate information security practices; and
(iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected Private
Information using reasonable and effective security
procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. The
Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and violates
federal and state statutes, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff is a Citizen of Windham, Connecticut and intends to
remain there throughout this litigation. He was an employee of the
Defendant when it acquired his PII.
M&M is a transportation company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
53 State Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 913-0363
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey
Leigh Montgomery
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarett@ellzeyaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
M.A. FORD: Harter Files Suit in S.D. Iowa
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.A. Ford Mfg. Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Timothy Harter, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. M.A. Ford Mfg. Co., Inc.
doing business as: M.A. Ford Manufacturing Company, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-00056-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, July 3, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Federal Trade
Commission Act (Unfair or Deceptive Acts).
MA Ford Mfg Co. -- https://www.maford.com/ -- is a manufacturing
company that provides carbide cutting tools and carbide and HSS
countersinks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey C. O'Brien, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 336-1298
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: jobrien@chestnutcambronne.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Rubina Sahar Khaleel
HENNESSY & ROACH, PC
14301 FNB Parkway, Suite 308
Omaha, NE 68154
Phone: (402) 933-8859
Fax: (402) 933-9379
Email: rkhaleel@hennessyroach.com
M.C. DEAN: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL DOMITROVICH and
THOMAS GUSSIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. M.C. DEAN, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00210-CMH-JFA (E.D.
Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting final
approval of the proposed class action settlement and certifying the
settlement class.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court, after the final approval
hearing scheduled for Aug. 23, 2024, grant this motion, grant
Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement
of Expenses, and Service Award to the Plaintiffs, and enter a final
judgment dismissing this case.
M.C. Dean is a design-build and systems integration corporation for
complex, mission-critical organizations.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kbVybA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven T. Webster, Esq.
WEBSTER BOOK LLP
300 N. Washington St., Suite 404
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (888) 987-9991
- and -
Laura Van Note, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
- and -
Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
BUSINESS DIVISION
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
107 N. 11th St. #402
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 448-1125
E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com
MACROGENICS INC: Continues to Defend Crain Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MacroGenics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Crain securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland.
On July 26, 2024, a putative securities class action suit, entitled
Crain v. MacroGenics, Inc. (Case No. 24-cv-02184), was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the
Company and Scott Koenig, the Company's President, Chief Executive
Officer and a member of the Company's Board of Directors, alleging
violations of securities laws during 2024.
The suit asserts certain claims under Section 10 and Rule 10b-5 of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged
misstatements or omissions concerning the Company's TAMARACK Phase
2 study of vobramitamab duocarmazine (vobra duo) in patients with
metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
The Company plans to vigorously defend against these claims.
Macrogenics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company based in
Maryland.
MADE IN ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Rodriguez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yoan Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Made in England, Inc., d/b/a CJ’S
Automotive Paint & Body Christopher Johnson, and Lidia C.
Castellano, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22717-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., July 17, 2024), alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff Rodriguez as a non-exempt,
full-time painter and auto body technician from approximately May
06, 2024, to June 26, 2024, or seven weeks. During the relevant
time of employment, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff his regular
and overtime wages. In addition, Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly with
checks and paystubs that did not provide accurate information about
the wage rate paid, the number of days and hours worked, the
employee's taxes withheld, etc., says the suit.
Made In England is an auto painting and body shop located at 3730
NW 82nd Street, Miami, FL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
MAINE: Faces Class Suit Over Psychotropic Drugs in Foster Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Fund reports that at age five, Bryan C.* entered foster care
in Maine. At age six, he had his first suicidal ideation. Bryan C.
gained weight, experienced excessive fatigue, developed a tic, and
expressed self-harm behaviors -- all side effects of the litany of
psychotropic medications he was administered while in foster care.
In his own words, his "brain doesn't work. [He] can't feel [his]
brain."
Psychotropics, an umbrella term encompassing antidepressants,
stimulants, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, and anti-anxiety
medications, are often prescribed to address mental health needs.
Among Bryan C.'s prescriptions were Adderall, Zoloft, Vyvanse, and
Clonidine; at times, he had been given up to four different
psychotropics at once, culminating in the pronounced effects listed
above.
Throughout Bryan C.'s time being prescribed medications, Maine
failed to provide an appropriate informed consent process. The
state also lagged in providing relevant parties with his complete
and up-to-date medical records -- so much so that there was a
three-month period in which no caseworker had access to his medical
records. To address these issues, Bryan C. eventually became one of
six plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit Bryan C. v. Lambrew.
Unfortunately, Bryan C.'s story is just one of many across the
United States. Children in foster care are more likely to be
subject to the negative consequences of psychotropic medications.
Nationwide, 33% of children in foster care receive at least one
psychotropic medication. Up to 41% of those children are
administered three or more medications in the same month. The full
scope of psychotropics' short-term and long-term effects on
children is still unknown, although research shows they can lead to
life-threatening conditions such as diabetes and even unexpected
death.
A Case Is Born
In 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a
report titled Treatment Planning and Medication Monitoring Were
Lacking for Children in Foster Care Receiving Psychotropic
Medication and identified five states, including Maine, with the
highest rates of use of psychotropic medication. According to
Madeleine Kinney, Senior Staff Attorney at Children's Rights and
one of the attorneys representing the class of children in Bryan
C., the report formed the one of the bases of the eventual lawsuit.
"We began an investigation -- speaking with a number of community
members in the state and experts, and reviewing data and publicly
available information," said Madeleine.
Children's Rights filed the class action lawsuit in October 2021
alongside New England law firm Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson and
legal aid nonprofit Maine Equal Justice. The complaint identified
three ongoing failures in Maine's oversight over the administration
of psychotropic drugs to children in foster care in Maine:
-- Poor maintenance and communication of medical records:
Federal and state laws require child welfare agencies to maintain
and promptly provide up-to-date medical records for each foster
child from placement to placement. However, according to the
complaint, instead of receiving the child's accurate medical
records, foster caregivers were often given incomplete records or
no record at all.
-- Lack of meaningful informed consent: Best practices and
guidelines reiterate the necessity of a robust informed consent
process for psychotropic medications. At minimum, prescribers
should provide complete information about psychotropic medication
before consent is given. Maine's Office of Child and Family
Service's (OCFS) then-current informed consent policy failed to
cover all psychotropic medications; according to the complaint, for
those it did cover, it was often misapplied or ignored.
-- Lack of a secondary review system: While several other
states have established secondary review processes to ensure that
children in foster care are not subject to unsafe psychotropic
prescription practices, Maine had no such well-functioning system
to protect the children in its foster care system. Read more about
some of these common issues in a Social Justice Blog post by
Children's Rights, titled "Too Many, Too Much, and Too Young: Class
Action Seeks To Protect Foster Kids From Dangerous Mistreatment
With Psychotropic Drugs."
"If the system isn't functioning the way it's supposed to, and the
way it should on certain issues, then kids are at risk of harm or
experiencing harm," said Madeleine.
At Last, Justice
In March of 2024, within three years of filing their initial
complaint, the Plaintiffs and Defendants reached a settlement that
is currently before the Court for approval.
"The goal is always to come to a place where both sides feel
comfortable with the reforms that are going to be implemented,"
said Madeleine about the settlement process. "The most important
thing is to really engage in careful, thorough, and reasoned
negotiations with the defending state and agencies, and we are
confident that we achieved that here."
The settlement identifies three core sets of reforms to address the
three main issues described above.
The first reform requires Maine to update the medical records of
children in foster care in a timely manner and ensure that their
key medical records move with the child to their foster placements.
It also improves the timeliness of the communication of these
records to relevant parties. When Bryan C. was admitted to a crisis
stabilization unit for suicidal threats and aggression, the
complaint alleges that there was a one-month period in which his
clinicians did not have access to his psychotropic medication
records. Since caseworkers will now be required to respond to
requests from medical providers within seven business days, these
reforms should help prevent the lag experienced by Bryan C.'s
clinicians.
The second reform requires a meaningful informed consent process,
including a consent form for the prescription of all psychotropic
medications. The process includes the ability for youth age 14 or
older to consent -- or decline to consent -- to a psychotropic
medication after a detailed conversation with their prescriber
about the medication. Seventeen-year-old Kendall P.*, another
Plaintiff in the lawsuit, requested to stop taking her psychotropic
prescriptions on multiple occasions but was ignored. Under this new
policy, her consent would have been mandatory. Even when children
are too young to provide informed consent on their own, this policy
still requires that they are informed about the medication and
given an opportunity to discuss it and express their concerns.
The last core reform achieved in the settlement establishes a
clinical review team of medical professionals who will both
prospectively and retrospectively evaluate psychotropic
prescriptions. They will assess prescriptions' necessity and
appropriateness, serving as a check and balance on psychotropic
prescribing practices.
These new practices contained in the agreed-upon settlement will
create stronger protections for the roughly 2,500 foster youth in
Maine. "The State has agreed to real reforms and committed to
meaningful oversight to make sure it makes good on those promises,"
said Jack Woodcock, an attorney with Bernstein Shur. "That is
something to be applauded."
What's Next?
The proposed settlement in Bryan C. has been preliminarily approved
by the Court and is now awaiting final approval. Once approved,
Children's Rights and Bernstein Shur will work with Maine's
Department of Health and Human Services and OCFS to ensure the
reforms are fully implemented. Children's Rights has also filed
lawsuits on psychotropic medications in several other states,
including ongoing litigation in Maryland seeking similar reforms.
Psychotropics can be a meaningful and effective treatment for
children with mental health conditions when administered
appropriately, but administering them without informed consent,
proper oversight, or review can lead to serious, and sometimes
life-threatening, consequences. The reforms achieved in the
settlement in Maine are paramount for protecting foster youth. The
work of Children's Rights has ensured that children just like Bryan
C. are free of unnecessary and harmful prescriptions and that their
voices are heard.
Learn more: For those interested in learning more about ongoing
issues in child welfare systems in the United States, Madeleine
recommends checking out the books linked here. In addition, be sure
to check out Children's Rights' blog post regarding their
successful case in Missouri on this topic, litigated alongside the
National Center for Youth Law. See also the important work being
done on behalf of children by Impact Fund grantees such as the
National Center for Youth Law, A Better Childhood, and Children's
Advocacy Institute. [GN]
MALLINCKRODT: Bid to Dismiss Continental Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the the motion to
dismiss the Continental General securities class suit remains
pending in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
On July 7, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company, its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Sigurdur Olafsson,
its Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Bryan Reasons, and the Chairman
of the Board, Paul Bisaro, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, captioned Continental General Insurance
Company and Percy Rockdale, LLC v. Mallinckrodt plc et al., No.
23-cv-03662.
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt's securities between
June 17, 2022 and June 14, 2023.
The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder related to the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, including its financial strength, its
ability to timely make certain payments related to Mallinckrodt's
Opioid-Related Litigation Settlement and the risk of additional
filings for bankruptcy protection.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount.
A lead plaintiff was designated by the court on September 10, 2023.
On December 26, 2023, an amended complaint was filed by the lead
plaintiff against Olafsson, Reasons, and Bisaro ("Continental
Defendants").
As to the Company, any liability to the plaintiffs in this matter
was discharged upon emergence from the 2023 Bankruptcy Proceedings.
The Continental Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February
26, 2024.
Mallinckrodt PLC is a global business of multiple wholly-owned
subsidiaries based in Ireland.
MANJARI CHAWLA: Court Dismisses Krause Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNEST KRAUSE, et al., v.
MANJARI CHAWLA, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02307-DAD-DB (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Dale Drozd entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
motion to stay and to strike the pending motions to dismiss, and
granting Defendants' motions to dismiss all claims brought against
them.
1. Plaintiffs Ernest Krause and Frederick Mitchell's motion to
stay
and to strike the pending motions to dismiss is denied.
2. Defendants Keith Banks and Dawn Wigeri van Edema's motion to
dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims brought against them is
granted, without leave to amend.
3. Defendant Lawrence Ring's motion to dismiss all of
plaintiffs'
claims brought against him is granted, without leave to
amend.
4. Defendants Manjari Chawla, Leah Wilson, Ruben Duran, George
Cardona, Ryan Chin, Tiffany Sorensen, Michael Nguyen, Alex
Hackert, and the State Bar of California's motion to dismiss
all
of plaintiffs' claims brought against them is granted,
without
leave to amend.
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate defendants
Keith
Banks, Dawn Wigeri van Edema, Lawrence Ring, Manjari Chawla,
Leah Wilson, Ruben Duran, George Cardona, Ryan Chin, Tiffany
Sorensen, Michael Nguyen, Alex Hackert, State Bar of
California,
and State Bar Stakeholders as named defendants in this
action.
6. As indicated above in fn. 1, the court will address
plaintiffs'
failure to timely serve defendant Maroni, who is now the only
remaining defendant in this action, by way of separate order.
and
7. Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice, which pertains to a
defendant who was named in plaintiffs' original complaint and
is
no longer named in plaintiffs' FAC, is denied as having been
rendered moot by the filing of plaintiffs' FAC.
Because plaintiffs' Dec. 19, 2023, filing of a notice of appeal did
not stay proceedings in this court, the pending motions to dismiss
are not somehow "premature." Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to
strike or dismiss the pending motions to dismiss will be denied.
On Dec. 4, 2023, the plaintiffs Ernest Krause and Frederick
Mitchell filed the operative first amended complaint in this action
alleging that the State Bar defendants were illegally disciplining
Plaintiffs on the basis of complaints filed by the individual
defendants, and that certain of the State Bar defendants were using
member dues to fund the unauthorized practice of law.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tcbS7t at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARSONER INC: Fascinations.net Inaccessible to Blind, Espinal Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. MARSONER, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06012
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.fascinations.net, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the 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 17, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Coochy Ultra Intro
Bundle and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff
encountered multiple access barriers that denied the 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 suit alleges.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation,
the suit adds.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers
Ms. Espinal is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
The Defendant sells adult toys, self-care and hygiene products,
safe sex products, bachelorette party items and decorations,
lingerie and apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, 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: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
MCKINSEY & CO: Class Settlement in Opiate Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: McKinsey & Co., Inc. National
Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation, Case No.
3:21-md-02996-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles Breyer
entered an order
1. The Court dismisses the Action and all claims contained, as
well
as all of the Released Claims, with prejudice as to the
Parties,
including the Class. The Parties are to bear their own costs,
except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement.
2. Only those entities listed in the Exclusion Report appended
to
Exhibit 1 of the Supplemental Geller Declaration that timely
submitted valid requests to opt out of the Settlement Class
are
not bound by this Order. Those entities are not entitled to
any
recovery from the Settlement.
3. The Court grants class certification for settlement purposes
only.
4. The Court confirms the appointment of Interim Settlement
Class
Counsel Paul J. Geller, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, and James R.
Dugan, II, as Settlement Class Counsel.
5. The Court confirms the appointment of Settlement Class
Representatives District Council 37 Benefits Fund Trust;
Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund; BCTGM
Atlantic Health & Welfare Fund; International Union of
Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare
Trust
Fund; and Teamsters Local 404 Health Services and Insurance
Plan.
6. The Court grants Settlement Class Counsel's request for
Attorneys' fees and expenses, subject to PTO No. 9. The Court
awards notice and administration costs, expert costs, and
attorneys' fees and expenses of 20% of the Settlement Fund,
net
of the foregoing costs and below service awards, subject to
and
in accordance with the Upfront Fund provisions posted on the
TPP
Settlement website.
7. The Court grants Class Counsel's request for service awards
of
$10,000 to each of the five Settlement Class Representatives.
8. The Court hereby discharges and releases the Released Claims
as
to the Released Parties, as those terms are used and defined
in
the Settlement Agreement.
9. The Court hereby permanently bars and enjoins the institution
and prosecution by Class Plaintiffs and any Class Member of
any
other action against the Released Parties in any court or
other
forum asserting any of the Released Claims, as those terms
are
used and defined in the Settlement Agreement.
10. The Court further reserves and retains exclusive and
continuing
jurisdiction over the Settlement concerning the
administration
and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and to effectuate
its terms.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ODsjLL at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2873: Bratt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------
RONNIE BRATT, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota, Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and
W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04172-RMG
(D.S.C., July 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed
with kidney cancer, says the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Bratt 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.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
E-mail: buck@lawrsd.com
MDL 2873: Faces Bearb Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE BEARB, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota, Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and
W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04159-RMG
(D.S.C., July 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed
with kidney cancer, says the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Bearb 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.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
E-mail: buck@lawrsd.com
MDL 2873: Fedor Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN FEDOR, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota, Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and
W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04175-RMG
(D.S.C., July 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed
with ulcerative colitis, says the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Fedor 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.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
E-mail: buck@lawrsd.com
MDL 2873: Lewis Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARYL JODY LEWIS, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota, Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL
SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and
W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04176-RMG
(D.S.C., July 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed
with testicular cancer, says the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Lewis 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.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
E-mail: buck@lawrsd.com
MDL 2873: Smedley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN DOUGLAS SMEDLEY, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota, Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL
SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and
W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04169-RMG
(D.S.C., July 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear
(TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, he was diagnosed
with ulcerative colitis, says the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Smedley 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.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
E-mail: buck@lawrsd.com
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Wolfing Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMBER WOLFING, an individual, on behalf of herself
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 24CV007705, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on July 17, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for Eastern District of California assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-01963-JDP to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.
Headquartered in Washington, Medical Management International owns
and operates veterinary clinics. It is doing business as Banfield
Pet Hospital. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Falcone, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
The KOIN Center
222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: (503) 552-2166
E-mail: elizabeth.falcone@ogletree.com
- and -
Paul M. Smith, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 840-3150
Facsimile: (916) 840-3159
E-mail: paul.smith@ogletree.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Ruling on Class Cert Bid Temporarily Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAGOP HADJIAN, v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a New Jersey corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-00469-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Eleanor Ross entered
an order finding it appropriate to temporarily stay its ruling on
Plaintiff's "Motion for Class Certification."
The Defendant opposes the Plaintiff's motion. On March 27, 2024,
the Defendant filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment" by which it
seeks summary judgment on "all remaining claims." The Plaintiff
opposes the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and
additionally moves to exclude two (2) of Defendant's expert
witnesses.
Mercedes-Benz is the distributor for Mercedes-Benz passenger cars
in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9hcwaz at no extra
charge.[CC]
META PLATFORMS: Teen Sues Over Harm Posed to Young Users
--------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for a 13-year-old Plaintiff have filed a class action
lawsuit against social media conglomerate Meta Platforms, alleging
its products -- Facebook and Instagram -- deliberately entice
minors into a "harmful obsession" with social media. Meta is
further accused of employing a business model scheme to purposely
mislead the public and hide the harm posed to young users by its
affiliated products.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California -- where Meta has a "significant office presence" -- the
class action lawsuit requests over $5 billion in compensatory and
injunctive relief for the Plaintiff and affected class members.
"Supplying harmful products to children is unlawful in every
jurisdiction in this country, under both state and federal law and
basic principles of products liability. And yet, that is what Meta
does every hour of every day of every year," the complaint reads.
Among the many allegations lodged in the complaint, Meta is accused
of specifically targeting young users as a core part of its
business strategy. Citing an internal email from a Meta product
designer which summarized, "the [sic] young ones are the best
ones," Defendants are accused of carefully tracking young user
engagement and weighing young user impact with any "substantive
changes" to product design.
The complaint scrutinizes Meta's development and implementation of
addictive young user features, such as engagement-based newsfeeds
(as opposed to chronological), interactive features ("Likes,"
"Live," and "Reels"), suggestions, content suppression, and
"recommendation algorithms," alleged to rely upon a psychological
phenomenon known as variable reinforcement schedules.
Through variable reinforcement or reward schedules, "the
unpredictable pattern of posts triggers a rush of dopamine, a
neurotransmitter known as the "pleasure chemical," in anticipation
of social media content and stimuli." From the complaint, "As this
happens over and over, every day, the dopamine levels and balance
in young user's brains are becoming significantly altered by Meta's
recommendation algorithms."
This strategic product deployment is alleged to ultimately
culminate in user addiction, with young users falling most
susceptible. The complaint contends Meta is well aware of these
effects, having studied and "purposefully designed" their platforms
to exploit these dopamine releases.
Meta is further accused of carefully studying the user habits of
minors under 13 years of age. The Plaintiff has allegedly used
Instagram since she was only ten years old, as Meta "never verified
her age."
As a result of daily usage, attorneys for the Plaintiff claim she
has been subjected to violent and gory content, body insecurities,
compulsive user tendencies, and negative effects on her emotions,
relationships, and even education.
"Research shows that young people's use of Meta's products is
associated with depression, anxiety, insomnia, interference with
education and daily life, and other negative outcomes. Indeed,
Meta's own internal research demonstrates that use of Instagram
results in such harms, and yet it has done nothing to lessen those
harms and has failed to issue any meaningful warnings about its
products or limit youth access."
Beyond employed marketing strategies and failure to warn, attorneys
for the Plaintiff and class contend Meta has violated the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act ("COPPA") by collecting
young users' personal information.
Included among the nineteen alleged counts are strict liability
(design defect, failure to warn), negligence, deceptive and unfair
trade practices, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud. Class
members vary by count(s) and include minors who use or have used
Instagram during the class period, pursuant to state jurisdiction.
A jury trial has been requested, in addition to explicit changes to
Defendants' practices and the order to, "disgorge [Defendants] of
all revenues and profits wrongfully obtained."
The plaintiff and class are represented by Boies Schiller Flexner
LLP ("BSF") attorneys David Boies, Sigrid S. McCawley, Jenny Kim,
and Joshua M. Stein, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP ("Labaton")
attorney Michael P. Canty, and Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman, PLLC ("Milberg") attorneys Gary M. Klinger and Alexandra
M. Honeycutt.
BSF Managing Partner, Sigrid S. McCawley commented, "For too long
Meta has turned a blind eye to the harm it is causing kids with its
addictive social media practices that place profits over the
emotional and physical well-being of our young. We have filed this
class action litigation on behalf of the harmed to force Meta to
take real action to protect kids and become part of the solution to
fix this very serious problem."
"Milberg is proud to join the fight against Meta to protect
children from social media addiction and depression," said Gary
Klinger, Senior Partner with Milberg.
Labaton Partner Michael Canty shared similar sentiments. "It is
important that we hold companies like Meta accountable for the
impact their algorithms and marketing strategies have on young
children. Labaton is proud to be working to promote children's
online well-being and safety."
Following Meta's takeover in 2012, more than 50 percent of
teenagers in the United States use Instagram, with over 22 million
U.S. teens logging on each day.
About Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC:
For over 50 years, Milberg and its affiliates have been fighting to
protect victims' rights and have recovered over $50 billion for
clients. A pioneer in class action litigation, Milberg is widely
recognized as a leader in defending the rights of victims of
corporate wrongdoing.
Media Contact:
Karine Lim
klim@milberg.com [GN]
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 16, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sonya Valenzuela v. Micron
Technology, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-07058-FMO-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order that:
1. The Stipulation is granted as set forth in this Order.
2. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Sept. 30,
2024.
3. All expert discovery shall be completed by Dec. 16, 2024. The
parties must serve their Initial Expert Witness Disclosures
no
later than Oct. 14, 2024. Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures
shall be served no later than Nov. 14, 2024.
4. The parties shall complete their settlement conference before
a
private mediator no later than Sept. 30, 2024. The
Plaintiff's
counsel shall contact the agreed-upon mediator with enough
time
so that the settlement conference date is early enough to
comply
with the settlement completion deadline imposed by this
court.
5. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later
than
Jan. 16, 2025, and noticed for hearing regularly under the
Local
Rules. Any untimely or non-conforming motion will be denied.
The
motion for class certification shall comply with the
requirements set forth in the Court's Order Re: Motions for
Class Certification issued on Jan. 29, 2024.
6. With respect to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff shall
file
her opposition by Aug. 22, 2024. The Defendant shall file its
reply by Sept. 5, 2024. The hearing on the motion shall be on
Sept. 19, 2024.
Micron Technology is an American producer of computer memory and
computer data storage including dynamic random-access memory, flash
memory, and USB flash drives.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nq8fRu at no extra
charge.[CC]
MODERNA INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Moderna, Inc. ("Moderna" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:MRNA)
and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and docketed
under 24-cv- 12058, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Moderna securities between January 18, 2023 and
June 25, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Moderna securities during the Class Period, you have until October
8, 2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle
Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.
Moderna is a biotechnology company that discovers, develops, and
commercializes messenger RNA ("mRNA") therapeutics and vaccines for
the treatment of infectious diseases, immuno-oncology, rare
diseases, autoimmune, and cardiovascular diseases in the United
States, Europe, and internationally. The Company's products
include, inter alia, mRESVIA (mRNA-1345), an mRNA respiratory
syncytial virus ("RSV") vaccine, intended to protect adults aged 60
years and older from lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV
infection.
In July 2023, Moderna initiated a rolling submission of a Biologics
License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA")-or the process by which a pharmaceutical
company may submit completed sections of a BLA for review by the
FDA before all sections become available-for real-time review of
mRNA-1345 backed by late-stage data, which indicated a vaccine
efficacy rate of 83.7% as defined by two or more RSV symptoms
related to the lower respiratory tract.
The Compliant alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) mRNA-1345 was less effective than Defendants had
led investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, mRNA-1345's clinical
and/or commercial prospects were overstated; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On May 31, 2024, Moderna issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the [FDA] has approved mRESVIA (mRNA-1345) . . . to protect adults
aged 60 years and older from lower respiratory tract disease caused
by RSV infection." However, the Company's press release indicated a
vaccine efficacy of only 78.7%, significantly lower than the 83.7%
vaccine efficacy that Moderna had previously identified in its
mRNA-1345 BLA rolling submission to the FDA. Following this
announcement, analysts and market observers were quick to note
mRNA-1345's lower-than-expected efficacy rate.
On this news, Moderna's stock price fell $8.94 per share, or 5.9%,
to close at $142.55 per share on May 31, 2024.
Then, on June 26, 2024, in a presentation before the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's ("CDC") Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices, Moderna disclosed that after 18 months,
mRNA-1345 proved only 49.9% to 50.3% effective against multiple
symptoms of lower respiratory tract disease-a significantly lower
efficacy rate than vaccines produced by Moderna's competitors.
Following this presentation, market analysts once again took notice
of mRNA-1345's reduced efficacy rate. For example, in an article
published the same day, Reuters stated, in relevant part, that
"Moderna [. . .] opens new tab respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)
shot mRESVIA showed 50% efficacy in preventing RSV after 18
months," and that, by comparison, the RSV vaccines of Moderna's
competitors GSK and Pfizer were "78% effective in preventing severe
RSV over a second year" and "78% effective through a second RSV
season," respectively. Also on June 26, 2024, Bloomberg published
an article entitled "Moderna RSV Vaccine Efficacy Sinks Over Time,
CDC Documents Show," which stated, in relevant part, that "[t]he
results could further raise doubts over the prospects for its shot,
which is already third to the market. Moderna shares fell as much
as 11%, their biggest intraday decline since November."
On this news, Moderna's stock price fell $15.15 per share, or
11.01%, to close at $122.45 per share on June 26, 2024.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
MORGAN STANLEY: Gibbs Law Group Investigates Cash Sweep Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Morningstar reports that if you invest in brokerage and advisory
accounts, you may have lost money on your cash holdings. Many
investment firms have paid customers unreasonably low interest
rates on their cash sweep accounts compared to what's offered on
the market. For example, Morgan Stanley made over $8 billion in net
interest income between the low rate it offered customers on its
sweep accounts and the higher fees it earned for itself by lending
out the deposited funds, according to one class action lawsuit.
Gibbs Law Group is investigating potential Cash Sweep Class Action
Lawsuits to help investors recover their losses.
Worried about cash sweep losses after investing with Ameriprise,
LPL or Morgan Stanley? Contact our consumer protection attorneys by
calling 510-913-9519 or visiting our website: Bank Cash Sweep Class
Action Lawsuits
How do I know if I lost money from a cash sweep account?
If you've had brokerage or advisory accounts with these firms, you
may have been harmed by their client sweep account practices:
-- Ameriprise
-- LPL
-- Morgan Stanley
-- Wells Fargo Advisors
In addition, the SEC has begun probing Morgan Stanley and Wells
Fargo on their cash sweep programs. These firms' extremely low
interest rates on cash sweep accounts may potentially be a breach
of fiduciary duty.
An investor with Morgan Stanley alleges the firm paid some of its
clients interest as low as 0.05% while Morgan Stanley received
interest rates of up to 5.63%. Another investor alleges that LPL
Financial paid customers as low as 0.35%, a rate significantly
lower than rates offered as high as 4.6% at other brokerage and
advisory firms.
Partner Rosemary Rivas says, "These major firms have a fiduciary
duty to act in their clients' best interests but have enriched
their own bottom lines instead. We're committed to holding them
accountable and recovering money that rightly belongs to
investors."
Gibbs Law Group's winning record protecting investors and consumers
from firm misconduct
Our consumer protection attorneys are leaders at holding big firms
and banks accountable. We have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars on behalf of investors and consumers, and the firm's
attorneys have received numerous awards including "Class Action
Practice Group of the Year," "Top Boutique Law Firms in California"
and "Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar." In addition to our leadership
in class action lawsuits, we also represent thousands of investors
in individual FINRA arbitrations against brokers and advisors who
have breached their fiduciary duty.
CATHERINE CONROY
Telephone: 510-350-9705
Email: CRC@CLASSLAWGROUP.COM [GN]
NANO NUCLEAR: Faces Securities Class Suit Over False Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. ("NANO Nuclear" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: NNE) in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired NANO Nuclear
securities between May 8, 2024 and July 18, 2024, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until October 8,
2024 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
The suit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material
facts, including that: 1) Nano Nuclear Energy, Inc.'s purported
progress toward regulatory approval for the design of its planned
micro reactors and fuel fabrication plant was nonexistent; 2) Nano
Nuclear Energy, Inc.'s timelines for commercialization were wildly
optimistic, at best, and most likely impossible; 3) the foregoing
issues were likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's projected revenues and growth; 4) as a result, the
Company's financial position and/or prospects were overstated; and
5) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. The suit further alleges that
when the truth emerged, Nano Nuclear Energy, Inc. shares fell
significantly, damaging investors according to the allegations of
the suit.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired NANO Nuclear shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion
Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212)
355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Updates Terms of Service on Media Platforms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Florio of NBC Sports reports that recently, the NFL sent an
email regarding terms of service update for its "websites, mobile
applications, and other online and mobile services operated by NFL
Enterprises LLC." I received the email, and I've heard from
multiple PFT readers who have gotten the same message.
Per the email, "The updates include changes to 'Section 16.
Limitation of Liability' and the terms governing how disputes are
handled, which are set forth in 'Section 18. Choice of Law, Class
Action Waiver, Small Claims, and Arbitration' and 'Section 19.
Mandatory Pre-dispute Resolution Process.'"
Section 18.2 contains language that purports to waive the rights of
consumers to band together as a class, requiring any potential
claims against the NFL to be brought individually: "ANY PROCEEDINGS
TO RESOLVE, ARBITRATE OR LITIGATE ANY DISPUTE WILL BE CONDUCTED
SOLELY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. NEITHER YOU NOR THE NFL WILL SEEK TO
HAVE ANY DISPUTE HEARD AS A CLASS ACTION OR IN ANY OTHER PROCEEDING
IN WHICH EITHER PARTY ACTS OR PROPOSES TO ACT IN A REPRESENTATIVE
CAPACITY."
Section 18.4 requires all disputes to be resolved in arbitration.
The good news, if there is any, is that the NFL doesn't try to
grant the power to resolve the arbitration to the Commissioner or
his designee, as the league does with many of its non-player
employees. Instead, the NFL designates the American Arbitration
Association as the entity that will resolve the matter.
There's plenty more. It's legalese. It's gobbledygook. It's
potentially a worthless and unenforceable contract of adhesion that
wouldn't allow the NFL to engineer its way to minimum
responsibility if/when its business practices violate the legal
rights of consumers.
Parts of it are also laughable. At Section 19.1, the NFL requires
consumers to send by certified mail or FedEx formal notice of any
legal dispute to the league office before bringing any claim in any
forum.
It's not a sweeping agreement that applies to any and all claims
that could ever be made against the NFL. It's written to encompass
the "use of the websites, mobile applications, and other online and
mobile services." Still, it's hard not to interpret this language
as a way to avoid a mess similar to the Sunday Ticket class action
-- especially as broadcasting pivots to streaming and Sunday Ticket
resides on YouTube and that technically counts as an "other online"
services owned by the NFL.
The fact that the NFL sent an email blast to presumably anyone with
an NFL.com account shows that they're serious about lawyering their
way toward limited exposure and/or severely restricted avenues for,
say, 2.4 million consumers banding together into a nationwide class
action that could still bring the league to its knees.
The fact that the email message conspicuously mentions the new
portions of the terms of service shows that they intend to use
them, against anyone and everyone who might have a claim relating
to the "use of the websites, mobile applications, and other online
and mobile services" operated by NFL Enterprises, LLC.
Most of those who get the email won't even open it. Those who do
will take a quick look at it (if that) and move on. Hardly any will
read the new terms of service.
But if you ever have a claim against the NFL -- especially a small
one that no lawyer would want to handle for one plaintiff but that
could become a very potent class action of millions -- the NFL will
do whatever it has to do to use these new terms of service to slam
the door to the courthouse in your face.
Because football is family. And, after dodging a $14 billion H bomb
(for now) in the Sunday Ticket case, they're doing whatever they
have to do to protect the family. [GN]
NATIONAL HEALTH: Seeks to Dismiss Trafficking Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Roszkowski, writing for McKnights Long-Term Care News, reports
that a national nursing home company is seeking dismissal of a
class-action lawsuit that alleges the company and its staffing
recruiter violated US labor laws in the recruitment of immigrant
nurses.
The federal lawsuit claims National Health Corporation, a
for-profit, publicly traded long-term care company headquartered in
Tennessee; two of its executives; and Infinite Care Partners LLC, a
recruiter of international healthcare workers for the company,
violated national and state laws including the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act in its
recruitment of foreign nurses.
Specifically, the suit alleges the companies recruited hundreds of
nurses from the Philippines to work at NHC facilities in the United
States, and that the defendants threatened baseless legal action,
changes to immigration status and serious financial harm if the
nurses stopped working for the defendants.
"They do this in part through illegal contracts that offer no way
for the nurses to leave their employment and demand upwards of
$40,000 -- often more than these nurses' net annual pay -- should
the nurses stop working for defendants for any reason," the
complaint alleges.
The lawsuit was originally filed in May and put on an indefinite
hold by the court in June to give the parties more time to submit
additional filings including motions to dismiss, as reported by
Bloomberg Law on August 6.
On July 26, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
In the motion, the defendants denied the allegations of human
trafficking, forced labor, FLSA and other violations cited in the
complaint.
An attorney for National Health Corp. did not immediately respond
after a request for comment from McKnight's Long-Term Care News on
August 7.
The defense motion noted the contract provisions for repayment
related to reimbursement of expenses that the companies incurred
related to immigration and travel of the nurses from the
Philippines to the United States, which the immigrant nurses agreed
to pay back if they did not fulfill the full term of their
contract.
"Plaintiffs now want to resign and enjoy all the benefits of
working in the United States without paying any costs associated
with their new opportunities," the motion to dismiss said.
The demand for immigrant nurses has been increasing in recent years
due to shortages of long-term care workers, especially since the
COVID crisis, and as the need for immigrant labor has grown, cases
like these have become more common.
At the same time, federal agencies have moved to protect nurses who
find themselves locked into contracts they can't afford to end.
Last November, a registered nurse and a Filipino immigrant, sued
the nursing home that she worked in New York, claiming that she was
forced to work in untenable conditions with subpar pay and was
allegedly threatened to pay $25,000 back to the nursing home if she
breached her 3-year contract.
The US Department of Labor has argued these types of contractual
arrangements are coercive and may prevent immigrant workers from
pursuing legal action for violations of labor law.
However, some industry representatives say that contractual
protections are needed for employers and staffing agencies who are
often spending thousands of dollars to bring immigrant nurses to
the US, while these nurses leave to take other jobs after a short
time.
"Without such a commitment, staffing agencies would not be able to
dedicate the enormous resources necessary to identify, recruit,
train, and facilitate the immigration of nurses," a spokesman for
the American Association of International Healthcare Recruitment,
told Bloomberg Law. [GN]
NATIONAL RUGBY: Discloses Viewers' Info to Meta, Blakeley Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH BLAKELEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE LIMITED, an Australian
Private Company, FOX SPORTS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, an Australian
Private Company, and FOX SPORTS STREAMCO PTY LIMITED, an Australian
Private Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-04923-VC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 9,
2024) is a class action suit brought on behalf of all persons with
Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly known as Facebook) accounts who
subscribe or have subscribed during the relevant period to Watch
NRL and viewed videos on www.watchnrl.com.
The Plaintiff brings this action in response to Watch NRL's
practice of knowingly disclosing its subscribers' personally
identifiable information (PII) -- including a record of every video
clip they view -- to Meta and/or other unrelated entities. Watch
NRL makes money by offering paid subscriptions in exchange for
access to its live streams and library of prerecorded videos. The
Plaintiff and other Class Members must subscribe to Watch NRL to
watch prerecorded videos at www.watchnrl.com. A basic subscription
costs AUD $24 per week, AUD $44 per month, or AUD $229 per year,
says the Plaintiff.
Watch NRL is a partnership, operated jointly by Defendants, which
offers a video-streaming service providing access to live streams
and on-demand prerecorded videos of Australian Rugby League games,
highlights, and related shows through the Watch NRL website --
www.watchnrl.com -- and various dedicated apps.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Adrian Barnes, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1201 Pacific Ave, 6th Floor
Tacoma, WA 98402
Telephone: (310) 807-1666
Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
abarnes@hammondlawpc.com
acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Memo Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.K, by their next friend,
Katherine Cooper, et al., v. Christopher Sununu, in his official
capacity as the Governor of New Hampshire, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00004-PB (D.N.H.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an
order sealing at Level I, indefinitely, the redacted portions of
the Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, as well as Exhibits 2,
3, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and
30 to the same.
The Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum and Exhibits 3, 15, 16, 17,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, and 29 contain sensitive and
identifiable information related to youth who have been the
subjects of Abuse and Neglect Cases and are entitled to protection
from having their information disseminated to the public.
Sealing these documents is necessary because redaction is
impractical. The children's identity is directly relevant to
establishing and supporting Defendants' grounds for opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and thus redacting this
information in these Exhibits would obscure relevant information
from the Court's view.
While the Court will need to be able to review these records
containing information related to Named Plaintiffs' and putative
class members' Abuse and Neglect cases, the Defendants' seek to
protect the confidentiality of this information to the maximum
extent possible, and comply with their obligations under state law.
The Plaintiffs have assented to Defendants' filing of these
documents under seal.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rwfQlF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Nathan W. Kenison-Marvin, Esq.
Michael P. DeGrandis, Esq.
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
33 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301-6397
Telephone: (603) 271-3650
E-mail: nathan.w.kenison-marvin@doj.nh.gov
michael.p.degrandis@doj.nh.gov
- and -
Paige M. Jennings, Esq.
Caroline M. Brown, Esq.
Philip J. Peisch, Esq.
Lara Rosenberg, Esq.
BROWN & PEISCH PLLC
1225 19th Street
Washington, DC 20036
E-mail: pjennings@brownandpeisch.com
ppeisch@brownandpeisch.com
lrosenberg@brownandpeisch.com
NEW YORK: Bid for Extension of Discovery in Cardew Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Cardew, et al., v.
New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision,
et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-06557-CJS-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Mark W. Pedersen entered an order denying Defendants' motion for an
extension of discovery.
The Plaintiffs need not respond to the Defendants' un-timely
discovery requests.
The Court continues its stay of upcoming deadlines, expanding the
stay to include all outstanding deadlines in the operative
scheduling order. If the parties wish, they may offer additional
letter briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion to preclude. If so, the
parties must meet, confer, and propose a briefing schedule by no
later than Aug. 16, 2024.
The Plaintiffs have disabilities that require the use of
wheelchairs and canes, for example. But the New York Department of
Corrections and Community supervision ("DOCCS") and its prisons,
which house the Plaintiffs, are alleged to often deny the use of
wheelchairs, canes, braces, and cushions. The Plaintiffs moved for
class certification; that motion remains pending.
New York State Department of Corrections is the department of the
New York State government that maintains the state prisons and
parole system.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LG9u9b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chloe Ines Holzman, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
655 Third Ave, 14th Flr
New York, NY 10017
- and -
Hallie E. Mitnick, Esq.
Megan P. Welch, Esq.
Andrew A. Stecker, Esq.
PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES
114 Prospect St
Ithaca, NY 14850
The Defendants are represented by:
John A. Marsella, Esq.
Muditha Halliyadde, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE
144 Exchange Blvd, Ste 200
Rochester, NY 14614
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Data Breach Class Action Allowed to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Adler of The HIPAA Journal reports that a class action
lawsuit against the electronic health record (EHR) and practice
management service provider, NextGen Healthcare, over a 2023
ransomware attack has been allowed to proceed.
Hackers had access to NextGen's computer systems from March 29,
2023, to April 14, 2023, during which time they exfiltrated a huge
volume of sensitive data from the NextGen Office system. The data
breach was reported to the Maine Attorney General on May 5, 2023,
as affecting 1,049,375 individuals. The ransomware attack was the
second to be experienced by NextGen in just a few months, with an
earlier Blackcat ransomware attack occurring in January 2023.
It is not uncommon for multiple ransomware attacks to be
experienced. A recent report from the cybersecurity firm Semperis
suggests three-quarters of companies that have experienced a
ransomware attack were attacked multiple times. Threat actors often
deploy malware in their attacks which allows them to conduct
further attacks weeks or months later.
More than a dozen lawsuits were filed against NextGen following the
data breach. The plaintiffs sought compensatory, statutory, and
punitive damages, additional credit monitoring services, and
injunctive relief, requiring NextGen to implement additional
security measures to ensure the privacy and security of the data it
stores. The lawsuits were consolidated into a single lawsuit --
Damon X. Miller v. NextGen Healthcare Inc. -- in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The consolidated lawsuit alleges NextGen could have prevented the
data breach if it had implemented reasonable and appropriate
security measures, yet failed to do so, even though it had
experienced a ransomware attack in January 2023. The consolidated
lawsuit asserted 25 claims, including negligence, unjust
enrichment, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of implied contract,
breach of bailment, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of
multiple state laws in California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.
NextGen attempted to have 22 of the 25 claims dismissed for failure
to state a claim. Most of the claims were dismissed in entirety by
U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash; however, the motion to dismiss
five counts was denied, which gives the plaintiffs the green light
to proceed with the action. The motion to dismiss the counts of
breach of fiduciary duty, litigation expenses, violation of the
Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act (GUDTPA), and
violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) was denied
in entirety, and the motion to dismiss the count of violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) was denied with respect
to one of the plaintiffs and a putative subclass.
NextGen had argued that as a service provider to healthcare
organizations, it did not owe a fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs as
it had no direct relationship with them and the mere receipt and
storage of confidential data does not create a fiduciary
relationship. Judge Thrash disagreed, as in some circumstances, the
retention of private information that patients provided while
seeking medical care can create a fiduciary duty under Georgia law.
In his ruling, Judge Thrash did not state whether the circumstances
in the case rose to that level, as that was not a question that
could be resolved through a motion to dismiss.
Judge Thrash ruled that the plaintiffs had plausibly stated a claim
for litigation expenses premised on bad faith, and the motion to
dismiss the GUDTPA claim was denied as NextGen's argument was
dependent on "a strained reading of an unadopted Report and
Recommendation." The CCPA claim was allowed to proceed as while
NextGen argued that it is a service provider under CCPA, the
plaintiffs stated otherwise and Judge Thrash accepted those
allegations as true, at least at this stage of the litigation. The
motion to dismiss the California Unfair Competition Law claim was
denied, as the defendant was alleged to have accepted payment to
securely keep data and failed to take reasonable security measures,
and that is sufficient to state a claim for restitution under UCL.
[GN]
NIKE RETAIL: Filing for Class Certification Bid in Jones Due Nov. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones, et al., v. Nike
Retail Services, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03343 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June
06, 2022), the Hon. Judge Nina R. Morrison entered an order on
motion for extension of time to complete discovery order on motion
for extension of time to file:
-- Any motion for class certification must be Nov. 8, 2024
served by:
-- The parties are to electronically file a Jan. 8, 2025
joint proposed pretrial order in compliance
with the district Judge's individual rules
on or before:
-- The Sept. 12, 2024, final conference is Jan. 14,
2025
adjourned to:
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
NIKE Retail is engaged in the retail sale of men's, women's and
children's footwear.[CC]
NORTH CAROLINA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 26
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOE 1, et al., v. NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00017 (M.D.N.C., Filed Jan. 08, 2024), the Hon. Judge
Loretta C. Biggs entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' consent
motion for extension of time to file amended complaint and to move
for class certification.
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to request leave to amend the
Complaint in this matter shall be Sept. 3, 2024.
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs' class certification motion shall
be
Sept. 26, 2024.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights Violation.
NC Department of Public Safety is North Carolina's statewide public
safety and homeland security agency.[CC]
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Joint CMC Statement Must be Filed by Nov. 27
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith, et al., v. Nuance
Communications, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00797 (N.D. Cal., Filed Feb.
22, 2023), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.
-- The deadline to amend the pleadings Sept. 12, 2024
to add parties, claims or defenses
is extended to:
-- The parties shall file an updated joint Nov. 27, 2024
CMC statement by:
Nuance Communications is an American multinational computer
software technology corporation.[CC]
PAC HOUSING: Hills Seeks More Time to File Amended Witness List
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIN HILLS, Individually
and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated, v. PAC HOUSING
GROUP, LLC; MOF PARC-FONTAINE, LLC (F/K/A GMF-PARC FONTAINE, LLC);
MOF-PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABILITY CORP. (F/K/A GMF- PRESERVATION OF
AFFORDABILITY CORP.); MINISTRY OUTREACH FOUNDATION (F/K/A GLOBAL
MINISTRIES FOUNDATION); and RICHARD HAMLET, Case No.
2:23-cv-05740-BWA-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting them an extension to file an amended fact
witness list for class certification until they receive, and have
had an opportunity to review, initial disclosures and outstanding
discovery responses from the Defendants.
The deadline for the parties to exchange witness lists for
witnesses who may testify for class certification purposes is Aug.
5, 2024. To comply with the current order, Plaintiffs have served
the Defendants with a fact witness list identifying, to the best of
their ability, 80 may-call fact witnesses for class certification
purposes.
The Plaintiffs have been deprived of the opportunity to review the
Defendants' initial disclosures and discovery. Because of this,
Plaintiffs anticipate that, upon receipt of the outstanding
information, they may need to amend their witness list, especially
since certain discovery requests were specifically designed to
obtain information about the class certification factors.
As such, the Plaintiffs file this motion out of an abundance of
caution and request that this Court grant Plaintiffs an extension
to amend their witness list until after they have received and had
a reasonable time to review Defendants' initial disclosures and
outstanding discovery responses.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6CX797 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Casey C. DeReus, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 308-5858
Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
E-mail: dereus@bespc.com
- and -
DeVonn Jarrett, Esq.
JARRETT LAW GROUP, LLC
643 Magazine Street, Suite 301A
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (833) 554-6653
E-mail: djarrett@jarrettlawgroup.com
PANORAMA ORTHOPEDICS: Court Enters Class Cert. Order in Stanley
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stanley, et al., v.
Panorama Orthopedics and Spine Center, P.C. et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-01176 (D. Colo., Filed May 11, 2022), the Hon. Judge
Raymond P. Moore entered an order regarding joint motion to certify
class and collective action and for final approval of settlement
agreement.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Panorama Orthopedics is a medical group practice located in Golden,
CO that specializes in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and
Physical Therapy.[CC]
PEARCE SERVICES: Lemons Sue Over Illegal Meal Deduction Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARIC LEMONS, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PEARCE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a PEARCE RENEWABLES, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-05995 (C.D. Cal., July 17, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, untimely paid wages, and other damages from Pearce
Services under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
Plaintiff Lemons worked for Pearce as a Tower Technician II from
approximately June 2022 through March 2023. Throughout his
employment, Pearce subjected Lemons to its illegal meal deduction
policy, requiring him to "clock out" for 30 minutes a day for
so-called "meal breaks," regardless of whether he actually received
a bona fide meal break. In addition, Pearce also failed to pay
Lemons his wages within seven calendar days after the end of the
week in which they earned such wages, as required by NYLL, says the
suit.
Headquartered in Paso Robles, CA, Pearce provides outsourced
repair, maintenance, and engineering services to critical
infrastructure in the renewable energy, power generation, and
telecom industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Hogg, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: whogg@mybackwages.com
PENNEY OPCO: Class Cert Bid Deadline Amended to Sept. 6
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOELLE ARGUELLES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PENNEY OPCO, LLC, d/b/a JCPENNEY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00981-BAS-DDL
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Leshner entered an order granting
in part the Joint Motion to amend the scheduling order, and
amending the scheduling order as follows:
Event Current Date New Date
Deadline to File Motion for July 26, 2024 Sept. 6,
2024
Class Certification
Status Conference Sept. 18, 2024, Oct. 23,
2024,
The deadline for the parties to raise any disputes regarding
written discovery has passed, and the Court expects the parties
work cooperatively to schedule Plaintiff's deposition and
Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition so as to allow adequate time
for Plaintiff to timely file her class certification motion.
On Feb. 13, 2024, the Court issued the initial Scheduling Order in
this matter that, among other things, required the parties to
substantially complete their document productions by not later than
May 28, 2024, and directed the Plaintiff to file her motion for
class certification by not later than June 27, 2024.
On May 2, 2024, following a status conference with the parties, the
Court continued the deadline for Plaintiff to file her class
certification motion to July 26, 2024.
On July 25, 2024, the day before Plaintiff's class certification
motion was due, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the
Scheduling Order.
Penney is an American department store chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jjC5Po at no extra
charge.[CC]
PUPY GROCERY: Santana Allleges Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------
VENECIA REYNOSO SANTANA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUPY GROCERY CORP. (D/B/A PUPY
DELI GROCERY), WILLIAM MEDINA, and JUAN ROBERTO MEDINA, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-05428 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed Defendants as a cook from approximately
October 23, 2018, until on or about April 25, 2022. She worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she
worked. In addition, the Defendants failed to pay her wages on a
timely basis as Defendants did not pay her on a regular weekly
basis, says the Plaintiff.
Pupy Grocery Corp. owns, operates, or controls a deli, located at
1299 St. Lawrence Ave, Bronx, NY 10472, under the name "Pupy Deli
Grocery." [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
READING INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL VALENTINI and
DALLACE BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. READING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00255-RFB-MDC (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order extending the time to file their motion for class
certification for 60 days from the current deadline of Aug. 19,
2024, to Oct. 18, 2024.
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, this is the plaintiffs' first request for an
extension of time to extend the deadline to file their motion for
class certification.
The Plaintiffs request this extension and good cause exists to
allow time to resolve discovery disputes and adequately review
discovery that has not yet been produced. Counsel for the parties
conferred regarding plaintiffs' request for an extension and
defendant advised that it does not oppose this request.
This request is not meant to delay but to allow time for parties to
resolve discovery disputes.
On May 29, 2024, the Court issued an order setting August 19, 2024,
as the deadline for plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification.
Reading International owns and operates cinemas and develops, owns,
and operates real estate assets.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OxcTxY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
Erica D. Entsminger, Esq.
EGLET ADAMS EGLET HAM HENRIOD
400 South Seventh Street, Suite 400
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 450-5400
Facsimile: (702) 450-5451
E-mail: eservice@egletlaw.com
- and -
Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
Jeremiah W. Nixon, Esq.
THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
800Market Street, Suite 1700
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-2929
Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com
jnixon@simonlawpc.com
RESTAURANT DEPOT: Warren BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANNEJELIND WARREN, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESTAURANT DEPOT, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2024CH06305, was removed from the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division on July 26, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-06513 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings her complaint on behalf of a proposed class of
all individuals in the State of Illinois who had their biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information collected, captured,
received, obtained, maintained, stored or disclosed by the
Defendant during the applicable statutory period. She alleges that
Defendant committed at least four violations of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
Restaurant Depot, LLC distributes a variety of food products.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Becky M. Christensen, Esq.
Lillian T. Manning, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
600 Washington Avenue Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 659-2000
Facsimile: (314) 659-2099
E-mail: bchristensen@littler.com
lmanning@littler.com
RITE AID: Judka Sues Over 2.2 Million Personal Info Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Adler of The HIPAA Journal reports that Rite Aid, the fourth
largest pharmacy chain in the United States, is facing a class
action lawsuit over a June 2024 data breach involving the personal
information of 2.2 million customers. According to Rite Aid, an
unknown third party gained access to some of its business systems
on June 6, 2024, after impersonating a company employee and
tricking them into disclosing their credentials. Rite Aid detected
the unauthorized access within 12 hours, but despite the quick
response, was unable to prevent the third party from exfiltrating
customer data.
The data stolen in the attack included names, addresses, dates of
birth, and driver's license numbers/government-issued IDs of
customers who made purchases between June 6, 2017, and July 30,
2018. Customers were notified in mid-July and were offered
complimentary identity monitoring services.
A lawsuit -- Erica Judka v. Rite Aid Corporation -- was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
that alleges Rite Aid was negligent by failing to implement
reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures, and had those
measures been implemented, the data breach could have been
prevented. While notification letters were issued promptly, the
plaintiff alleges the letters lacked important information about
the breach, such as the threat actor behind the attack, whether a
ransom demand was issued, and if the stolen data had been uploaded
to the dark web. The plaintiff alleges that her data has been
misused, as she has experienced an increase in spam and robocalls
following the data breach.
In addition to negligence, the lawsuit asserts claims of breach of
confidence and breach of fiduciary duty and seeks a jury trial,
class action certification for a class of 2.2 million individuals,
damages, attorneys fees, legal costs, and injunctive relief,
including an order from the court requiring Rite Aid to implement
additional security measures. The plaintiff and class are
represented by attorneys from Laukaitos Law LLC and Sciolla Law
Firm LLC. [GN]
STEIN SAKS: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in EISI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., v. STEIN SAKS, PLLC, et al., Case No.
8:24-cv-01186-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.),the Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter
entered an order setting rule 26(f) scheduling conference.
The Scheduling Conference will be held pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 16(b). The parties are reminded of their
obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) to confer
on a discovery plan no later than twenty-one (21) days before the
Scheduling Conference. The court encourages counsel to agree to
begin to conduct discovery actively before the Scheduling
Conference.
Stein Saks is a consumer protection law firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jby9gi at no extra
charge.[CC]
STRIVECTIN OPERATING: Haviland Balks at Illegal Tiktok Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH HAVILAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STRIVECTIN OPERATING COMPANY, INC., a
Tennessee corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
2:24-cv-02127-SCR (E.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant uses a trap and trace process on its Website by deploying
the TikTok Software on its Website, because the software is
designed to capture the phone number, email, routing, addressing
and other signaling information of website visitors, in violation
of the California Trap and Trace Law.
The TikTok Software acts via a process known as "fingerprinting."
Put simply, the TikTok Software collects as much data as it can
about an otherwise anonymous visitor to the Website and matches it
with existing data TikTok has acquired and accumulated about
hundreds of millions of Americans, the Plaintiff contends.
Moreover, the TikTok Software begins to collect information the
moment a user lands on the Website. Thus, even though the Website
has a "cookie banner" the information has already been sent to
TikTok regarding the user's visit.
The Defendant did not obtain Class Members' express or implied
consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the
purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization, the Plaintiff
adds.
Ms. Haviland is a citizen of California residing within the Eastern
District of California.
StriVectin owns, operates, and/or controls www.strivectin.com, an
online retailer that sells skin care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Narain Kumar, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 927-9270
E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com
nkumar@taulersmith.com
SUBWAY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chaudhari Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
HARSHILKUMAR CHAUDHARI as an individual and on the behalf of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SUBWAY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-06021 (N.D. Ill., July 17, 2024) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.
Plaintiff Chaudhari was employed by Defendants as a team member
beginning in or around July 2023, until his constructive discharge
on or around April 16, 2024. He routinely worked over 40 hours or
more in a work week but Defendant just paid Plaintiff's regular
hourly rate on each paycheck not granting Plaintiff the overtime
accumulated on the additional hours each week as well as not paying
Plaintiff minimum wage, says the suit.
Subway is a fast food restaurant franchise that specializes in
submarine sandwiches and wraps. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad W. Eisenback, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 568-3056
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
E-mail: ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com
SUNNOVA ENERGY: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNNOVA ENERGY CORP., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV16061, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on July 26, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-06346 to the proceeding.
The suit arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
policies and practices in violation of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professionals Code.
Sunnova Energy Corp. operates as a solar energy company.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher J. Rillo, Esq.
Raerani Reddy, Esq
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
101 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 291-6200
Facsimile: (415) 291-6300
E-mail: christopher.rillo@bakerbotts.com
rani.reddy@bakerbotts.com
- and -
Kevin Sadler, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
1001 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 739-7500
Facsimile: (650) 739-7699
E-mail: kevin.sadler@bakerbotts.com
SUNY DOWNSTATE: Fact Discovery in Blain Suit Due Oct. 22
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blain v. State University
of New York Downstate Medical Center, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-03022-FB-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Henry
entered a discovery plan/scheduling order:
Initial documents requests and interrogatories Aug. 15,
2023
All fact discovery to be completed (including Oct. 22,
2024
disclosure of medical records)
Joint status report certifying close of fact Oct. 28,
2024
discovery and indicating whether expert discovery
is needed
Completion of all discovery Feb. 18,
2025
Joint status report certifying close of all Mar. 10,
2025
discovery and indicating whether dispositive
motion is anticipated
Proposed Joint Pre-Trial Order due Mar. 25,
2025
(if no dispositive motion filed
SUNY Downstate is a public medical school and hospital in Brooklyn,
New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UEyh8N at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Zaidi Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 27
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Supernus Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the settlement
hearing for Ali Zaidi class suit is set on September 27, 2024.
On December 10, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed by Ali Zaidi
against Adamas and certain of Adamas's former directors and
officers in federal court in the Northern District of California
(Case No. 4:19-cv-08051).
This lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by Adamas and certain of Adamas's former directors and
officers.
On October 8, 2021, the presiding judge dismissed the litigation,
and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.
On November 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their second amended class
action complaint.
On December 10, 2021, Adamas filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss.
On January 13, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
All claims against Adamas have been dismissed with prejudice, but
claims against one of the individual defendants, who may have
certain rights to indemnification, remain.
On February 27, 2023, Plaintiffs advised the Court that Plaintiffs
would proceed only on the remaining claim against one of the
individual defendants.
The individual defendant filed an answer denying the claim on April
28, 2023.
On September 21, 2023, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the Zaidi litigation, subject to court
approval.
On October 31, 2023, the Court granted the parties' stipulation
staying all proceedings and vacating all existing deadlines.
On April 2, 2024, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement
of the case, including a $4.7 million payment from insurers,
subject to further consideration at a settlement hearing to be held
on September 27, 2024.
Adamas believes it has strong factual and legal defenses to all
actions and intends to defend itself vigorously.
Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing and commercializing products for the
treatment of central nervous system diseases.
SUPREME TOUCH: Fails to Pay Health Aides' OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIAN DIXSON, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
SUPREME TOUCH HOME HEALTH SERVICES CORP, Case No.
2:24-cv-03828-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 7, 2024) sues the Defendant
for failure to pay employees overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked
over 40 hours in one or more workweek(s) during the three (3) years
immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint. Despite working
more than 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendant paid them their
Base Hourly Wage for all hours worked, including hours in excess of
40 in a workweek, the suit alleges.
By way of one non-exhaustive example, during the pay period of
April 22, 2024 through May 5, 2024, the Named Plaintiff worked at
least 80 regular hours for which she was compensated by the
Defendant at a Base Hourly Wage of $15.50 per hour.
The exact total amount of compensation, including overtime
compensation, that Defendant has failed to pay the Named Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees is unknown at this time, as
many of the records necessary to make such calculations are in the
possession of Defendant and/or were not kept by Defendant, the suit
adds.
The Named Plaintiff and Defendant's other similarly situated
employees are hourly, non-exempt direct care employees, including
Home Health Aides, homemakers, Registered Nurses (RNs), State
Tested Nursing Assistants (STNAs), Licensed Practical Nurses
(LPNs), caregivers, and other medical aides, and who are entitled
to overtime.
Ms. Dixson has worked (and still works) for the Defendant as an
hourly, non-exempt "employee" primarily in the position of Home
Health Aide from February 2022 through present.
The Defendant is a community-based primary healthcare service
agency that provides personal care services, supported living
services, skilled nursing services, and other direct care services
to its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
Esther E. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
4400 N. High St., Suite 310
Columbus, OH 43214
Telephone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com
TARGET CORPORATION: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Halley Due Sept. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORBIN HALLEY, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TARGET CORPORATION, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 8:17-cv-00692-JGB-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jesus Bernal entered an order granting-in-part the
Defendant's ex parte application to modify briefing and hearing
schedule.
The briefing and hearing schedule for the motion is modified as
follows:
Event Date
Target's Supplemental Opposition Addressing Aug. 12, 2024
Amended On-Premises Theory
Plaintiff's Reply in support of Motion for Aug. 26, 2024
Class Certification
Hearing on Motion for Class Certification Sept. 23, 2024
Target Corporation is an American retail corporation that operates
a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2GvUKZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
TENNESSEE: Lawrence Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Keith Lawrence et
al., v. Tennessee Department of Corrections et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00259-CEA-SKL (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting motion to certify class of prisoners.
Tennessee Department of Correction is a Cabinet-level agency within
the Tennessee state government responsible for the oversight of
more than 20,000 convicted offenders in Tennessee's fourteen
prisons.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 5, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XSaDC6 at no extra
charge.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
TJX COMPANIES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The TJX Companies Inc. d/b/a TJ Maxx,
Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-02735 (D. Minn., July 17, 2024) arises
from Defendant's failure to comply with the general
non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and
auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations and the Minnesota
Human Rights Act.
The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class are blind and
low-vision individuals and are reliant upon screen reader
technology to navigate the Internet. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on
behalf of herself and others who are similarly situated, seeks
relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its
Website accessible to Plaintiff and the putative class; and
requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices, and
procedures, the details of which are more fully described below, to
ensure that Defendant's website remains accessible in the future.
The Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and
costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such
other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate.
Headquartered in Framingham, MA, owns and operates the website,
www.tjmaxx.tjx.com, which offers clothing and accessories for sale
including pants, jeans, active wear, maternity, pajamas, shoes, and
more. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Agrees to Settle Camry HVAC Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a Toyota Camry settlement reimburses
owners and lessees whose vehicles suffered from foul odors or mold
growth in their heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
systems.
The settlement benefits California residents who are current and
former owners and lessees of 2012 to 2015 Toyota Camry XV50
vehicles as of May 31, 2024.
Consumers can check their eligibility using the VIN lookup tool on
the settlement website.
According to plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, Toyota
equipped some Camry vehicles with defective HVAC systems that could
cause moisture accumulation. Over time, this moisture allegedly
caused foul odors and, in some cases, mold growth.
Toyota is a Japanese-owned vehicle brand that sells a wide range of
models, including the Camry passenger vehicle.
Toyota hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the HVAC defect class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Toyota Camry settlement, consumers can
receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses they incurred in
connection with the alleged HVAC defect. This reimbursement covers
the cost of replacing or installing a charcoal filter and expenses
related to flushing the evaporators on the vehicles.
Class members can receive an unspecified amount for expenses
incurred before May 31, 2024, but can only receive up to $100 for
expenses incurred after May 31, 2024.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 30, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct.
30, 2024.
To receive Toyota Camry settlement benefits, class members must
submit a valid claim form by May 31, 2025 or May 31, 2026,
depending on when their claimed losses occurred and the model year
of their vehicles. For losses incurred before May 31, 2024,
consumers have until May 31, 2025 to file a claim. For losses after
May 31, 2024, consumers can file a claim through May 31, 2025 if
their vehicles were from model years 2012-2013 or through May 31,
2026 if their vehicles were from model years 2014-2015.
Who's Eligible
California residents who are current and former owners and lessees
of 2012 to 2015 Toyota Camry XV50 vehicles as of May 31, 2024
Consumers can check their eligibility using the VIN lookup tool on
the settlement website.
Potential Award
$100+
Proof of Purchase
Receipts, repair statements and invoices
Claim Form Deadline
05/31/2026
Case Name
Salas, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-08629-HDV-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California
Final Hearing
10/30/2024
Settlement Website
ToyotaCaliforniaHVACSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Salas v. Toyota Settlement
Settlement Notice Administrator
P.O. Box 2682
Portland, OR 97208-2682
(888) 907-6966
Class Counsel
Tarek Zohdy
CAPSTONE LAW APC
Paul Kiesel
KIESEL LAW LLP
Defense Counsel
John P Hooper
KING & SPALDING LLP [GN]
TRICIDA INC: Class Cert Hearing in Pardi Suit Set for Sept. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PARDI, et al., v.
TRICIDA, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00076-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order setting the
following deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16
and Civil Local Rule 16-10:
Event Deadline
Reply in Support of Class Certification Aug. 15, 2024
Motion
Class Certification Hearing Sept. 12, 2024,
Substantial Completion of Document Nov. 15, 2024
Production
Close of Fact Discovery Feb. 28, 2025
These dates may only be altered by order of the Court and only upon
a showing of good cause. The parties are directed to review and
comply with this Court's standing orders.
Tricida is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical and drug discovery
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=loB36p at no extra
charge.[CC]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Labor Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Wilson, writing for HRD Canada, reports that ride-hailing and
courier services company Uber will soon be in court facing charges
as an Alberta court has released a court-approved notice certifying
a class action against the employer.
The Alberta Court of Kings Bench has certified the case alleging
that the employer misclassified the employment status of Alberta
drivers and delivery people, according to McKenzie Lake Lawyers
LLP.
"The class-action lawsuit alleges that the level of control Uber
has over Alberta drivers and delivery people creates a relationship
of employment and that Uber has misclassified the employment status
of Alberta drivers and delivery people," according to the law
firm.
The "misclassification" has deprived Alberta drivers and delivery
people of the "protections and benefits under employment standards
legislation," including minimum wage, overtime, vacation and
holiday pay, they said.
These allegations have not yet been proven in court, the law firm
noted.
The Canadian Freelance Union is looking to help people who have
been victims of labour violations.
Are Uber drivers independent contractors?
Uber classifies its drivers and couriers as independent contractors
because they can choose when, where and how often they work,
according to a CBC report. However, in exchange for that freedom,
drivers and couriers have no job security or access to many
benefits that are typical of employment.
"We believe we can make app-based work better for drivers and
delivery people," said Uber Canada spokesperson Keerthana Rang in a
statement, according to the CBC report.
"That's why for the last two years, Uber and UFCW Canada, Canada's
largest private sector union, have been providing over 140,000
drivers and delivery people on the Uber platform with strong
representation and advocating for government reforms to provide
drivers and delivery people new benefits while preserving the
flexibility of their work."
In June, British Columbia's new policy for gig workers' pay and
tipping stirred some controversy as ride-hailing company Uber
expressed opposition to the new regulation, saying it is "set to
drive up costs for residents and drive down demand for local
businesses."
BC's new policy requires Uber and other driving and delivery apps
like DoorDash and SkipTheDishes to pay their drivers $20.88 per
working hour, beginning September 3. The new pay is 20% higher than
BC's regular minimum wage. [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: UberX Drivers Class Suit Settlement Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Uber Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the UberX
Drivers-related class suit settlement is pending for court
approval.
In May 2019, an Australian law firm filed a class action in the
Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries, on behalf of certain participants in
the taxi, hire-car, and limousine industries.
The plaintiff alleges that the Uber entities conspired to injure
the group members during the period 2014 to 2017 by either directly
breaching transport legislation or commissioning offenses against
transport legislation by UberX Drivers in Australia.
The claim alleges, in effect, that these operations caused loss and
damage to the class representative and class members, including
lost income and decreased value of certain taxi licenses.
In March, April and October 2020, the same Australian law firm
filed four additional class action lawsuits alleging the same
claim.
In March 2024, the class action was settled with no admission of
liability by Uber.
Such settlement is pending court approval.
Uber provides ride-hailing services, courier services, food
delivery, and freight transport.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert Hearing in LD Suit Moved to Oct. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, DB, BW, and CJ, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. UNITED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a California Corporation, UNITED HEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, and MULTIPLAN, INC.,
a New York Corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order continuing the
class certification hearing currently scheduled for Aug. 13, 2024
to Oct. 15, 2024.
On Dec. 18, 2024, the Court scheduled the hearing on Plaintiffs'
Renewed Motion for Class Certification for May 22, 2024.
On April 11, 2024, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation to
reschedule the class certification hearing for June 4, 2024.
On May 17, 2024, the Court issued an order vacating the June 4,
2024, class certification hearing.
United Behavioral provides information and referral to appropriate
alcohol and drug treatment and recovery services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qIhkG3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
1775 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 677-4030
Facsimile: (202) 677-4031
E-mail: Matt.Lavin@agg.com
- and -
David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
Katie J. Spielman, Esq.
DL LAW GROUP
345 Franklin Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 678-5050
Facsimile: (415) 358-8484 E-mail:
david@dllawgroup.com
katie@dllawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
Geoffrey Sigler, Esq.
Derek K. Kraft, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: LBlas@gibsondunn.com
GSigler@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Errol J. King, Jr., Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
II City Plaza, 400 Convention Street, Suite 1100
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 376-0207
Facsimile: (225) 381-9197
E-mail: Errol.King@phelps.com
UNITED STATES: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Sept. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMERSON BRADLEY,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-03442-RBW
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Reggie Walton entered an order that:
-- On or before Sept. 9, 2024, the parties shall file a joint
status
report indicating their proposed scope of class-certification
discovery;
-- On or before Sept. 16, 2024, the Defendant shall submit
supplemental briefing, not to exceed ten pages, addressing
whether
sovereign immunity bars the plaintiff's Privacy Act claims for
damages;
-- On or before Sept. 23, 2024, the plaintiff shall file his
response
to the defendant's supplemental brief;
-- The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice.
U.S. Department of Education is the agency of the federal
government that establishes policy for, administers and coordinates
most federal assistance to education.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jMGSXo at no extra
charge.[CC]
USAA FEDERAL: Reaches $64-Mil. Settlement Over Improper Bank Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary-Taylor Wright, writing for MYSA, reports that three years
after five military men accused USAA Federal Savings Bank of
violating protections for military members and charging "useless"
or unsubstantiated fees, a deal has been brokered. USAA will shell
out more than $64 million to some 210,000 military customers and
the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit.
As first reported by San Antonio Express-News, USAA officials
struck a deal with the plaintiffs, reaching a hefty sum that will
go to hundreds of thousands of military customers. The four named
plaintiffs -- Philip Bulls, Dean Brink, Carmin Nowlin, Nicholas
Prado and Raphael Riley -- will receive the largest payout of the
military men, each receiving a $20,000 settlement.
The attorneys representing the plaintiffs -- lawyers with Zaytoun,
Ballew & Taylor in North Carolina and with Smith & Lowney in
Washington -- may seek up to 27.5% of the $64 million settlement,
raking in a whopping $17.7 million across the two firms. USAA
retains its innocence in the settlement and continues to disagree
with the accusations made by the plaintiffs in the class action
suit.
USAA officials say they have been and continue to be committed to
going beyond the minimum requirements set forth by federal acts
protecting military servicemembers, pointing to USAA interest rates
which are lower than those set forth by law.
"Before this lawsuit was filed, we had already compensated members
for errors that may have occurred related to the allegations in the
lawsuit. Roughly half of the announced settlement amount is simply
reissuing checks we had previously mailed that our members never
cashed," USAA Public Relations Director Roger Wildermuth told MySA.
"USAA strongly disagrees with the lawsuit allegations, but this
settlement is in the best interest of our membership and allows
USAA to avoid lengthy and expensive litigation so we can focus on
providing exceptional service."
Lawsuit filed against USAA in 2021 after years of remediation
orders
Court documents show USAA Bank was ordered to mail out checks to
military servicemembers in 2019 and 2020 by the United States
Department of Treasury and the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency. The federal agencies deemed USAA bank had violated
federal law, including the Military Lending Act and the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
In response to the order, USAA Bank sent out about 150,00 checks
for alleged SCRA violations and another 109,000 checks for MLA
violations. Plus, USAA was asked to mail out another 388,000 checks
for customers using debt protection services and 212,000 checks for
customers using their extended vehicle protection services -- it
was ruled these services were "useless."
However, in the lawsuit filed in 2021, the plaintiffs claimed the
checks were not enough to fully cover the incurred costs for the
banking customers. They say there was inadequate documentation on
how the amounts in the checks were determined and how they properly
made up for the financial losses. Further, some claimed the checks
weren’t able to be cashed or were tossed because they resembled
junk mail.
Essentially, USAA offered 4% interest rates to the plaintiffs named
in the suit -- a competitive rate which USAA officials say was
better than those required by federal law for servicemembers.
However, the plaintiffs say USAA failed to reduce the rate upon
active deployment or within a year of deployment, which is required
by federal military protections. Plus, the military members accuse
USAA of failing to "forgive incurred interest, including certain
fees and charges, as required by the SCRA and the USAA Military
Benefits Program."
Throughout court proceedings and all the way up to the settlement
agreement, USAA has continued to plead innocent to all the
accusations, opting instead to avoid a legal battle.
Several failed mediation attempts before $64 million USAA
settlement
USAA officials and their accusers met several times between the
initial accusations in 2021 and the time they agreed on a
settlement, but negotiations stalled repeatedly in between. It took
two former district court judges and numerous meetings to come to
an agreement.
The concept of mediation was first explored in February of 2022.
The first session was promptly set for June of that year. When the
two parties couldn’t even agree on what documents USAA had to
procure, the first mediation meeting was cancelled.
It would be another year before mediation efforts picked back up.
In June of 2023, retired district court judge Elizabeth Laporte
acted as mediator between the two parties in San Francisco.
However, negotiations stalled and the mediation was called off as
neither side reached a compromise.
In January of this year, another former judge took a stab at
playing mediator, retired federal district court judge Layn
Phillips, who mediated a similar case, Childress v. Banke of
America. Some of the settlement was worked out under Phillips, but
negotiations continued until a final agreement was struck July 2,
2024. [GN]
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Strike Tucson's Expert Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as POTTER v. VALEANT
PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al. (re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation), Case
No. 3:15-cv-07658-MAS-RLS (D.N.J.), the Defendant will move for an
Order striking Tucson's
(1) expert report of Joshua Mitts,
(2) additional new evidence, and
(3) related portions of Tucson's reply brief in support of class
certification.
Valeant is an American-Canadian multinational specialty
pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DG1E5b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
A. Ross Pearlson, Esq.
CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC
105 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 530-2100
E-mail: rpearlson@csglaw.com
- and -
Philip S. Beck, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Hall, Esq.
Christopher D. Landgraff, Esq.
Robert B. Tannenbaum, Esq.
Nicolas L. Martinez, Esq.
Alexandra Genord, Esq.
BARTLIT BECK LLP
Courthouse Place
54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 494-4400
Facsimile: (312) 494-4440
VICTORIA: Signs Towers Demolition Deals Despite Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Powell, writing for MSN.com, reports that the Victorian
government has signed a contract to tear down three public housing
towers despite an ongoing class action suit.
Homes Victoria has awarded John Holland the contract as part of its
high-rise redevelopment program in Carlton, Flemington and North
Melbourne.
Victoria's Supreme Court issued orders in July for a public housing
class action to proceed to trial in October over the demolition of
three towers -- on Alfred Street and Racecourse Road in North
Melbourne and Holland Street in Flemington.
The court will consider whether Homes Victoria decided to demolish
them properly and with appropriate consideration for the human
rights of the inhabitants.
A spokesperson for the social housing body told AAP it would be
inappropriate to comment as the matter was before the courts.
The Greens slammed the contract on Sunday, August 11, saying more
public homes were needed rather than pulling down existing ones.
"Knocking down public homes in the middle of a housing and rental
crisis is like drilling holes in the floor of the Titanic," party
leader Adam Bandt said.
"At a time when both state and federal Labor governments should be
building more public housing, they seem to be walking away for
good."
Homes Victoria has stated before the court that no notices to
vacate would be issued concerning these towers before January 1,
2025.
All 44 of Melbourne's public housing high rise will be redeveloped
by 2051, with five in Flemington, North Melbourne and Carlton
expected to be replaced by 2031.
The project -- a key pillar of the government's housing statement
unveiled by then-premier Daniel Andrews in September -- will lead
to the relocation of more than 10,000 residents. [GN]
WHALECO INC: Arbitration Bid Denial in Smith Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------
Whaleco Inc. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled Heather Smith, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Whaleco Inc., doing business as
Temu, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-CV-00559-D, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
The suit, which was removed from the District Court of Washita
County, State of Oklahoma, to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma, is brought against the Defendant
for violation of Oklahoma's Telephone Solicitation Act.
On Nov. 15, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti on July 23, 2024. The Court held that the
Plaintiff did not receive conspicuous notice of the Defendant's
Terms of Use, or gave her assent to an online agreement containing
them. Therefore, no contract between the parties including an
arbitration agreement was formed.
The appellate case is captioned Smith v. Whaleco Inc., Case No.
24-6155, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, filed on July 30, 2024. [BN]
HEATHER SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:
Mary Quinn Cooper, Esq.
Kathy R. Neal, Esq.
MCAFEE & TAFT
Two West Second Street, Suite 1100
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telephone: (918) 587-0000
- and -
Edwin Powell Miller, Esq.
950 West University Drive, #300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 652-2852
- and -
Arun Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN LAW FIRM
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 610
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 203-4573
WHALECO INC., doing business as TEMU, is represented by:
John Alfred Burkhardt, Jr., Esq.
SCHAFFER HERRING LAW FIRM
7134 South Yale Avenue, Suite 300
Tulsa, OK 74136
Telephone: (918) 550-8105
WHOLE FOODS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Safari Suit Moved to Dec. 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA SAFARI and PEYMON
KHAGHANI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and FARM FORWARD, on behalf of the general public, v.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, WHOLE
FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, MRS.
GOOCH'S NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC., doing business as Whole Foods
Market, a California corporation, Case No. 8:22-cv-01562-JWH-KES
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb entered an order granting
in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' instant application for
a continuance of the class certification briefing and hearing
schedule.
The Court concludes—particularly in view of the concession in
Defendants' Opposition—that Plaintiffs have shown good cause to
receive an extension.
The Application is granted in part, to the extent that the Court
will extend the Schedule. However, the Court agrees with
Defendants' assertion that the Schedule should not be vacated in
its entirety. Therefore, the Application is denied in part, to the
extent that Plaintiffs request the complete vacatur of the
Schedule.
Specifically, the Schedule for class certification briefing and
hearing is modified as follows
:
Event New Date/Deadline
Deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class Dec. 6, 2024
certification
Deadline for Defendants to respond to such Jan. 17, 2025
motion
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file a reply in Feb. 14, 2024
support of such motion
Hearing on a class certification motion March 18, 2025,
at 10:00 a.m.
Whole Foods retails organic and natural foods.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xwx0w8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
[*] Groups Clash Over CMS' 2024 European Class Action Report
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Rigby, writing for Global Legal Post, reports that legal
professionals and campaign groups have clashed over research by CMS
that showed considerable growth in the number of UK competition
class actions.
The 2024 European Class Action Report stated that claims
encompassing more than 500 million class members had been filed in
the UK by the end of 2023, which, given the country's population of
67 million, equated to over 8.1 class actions per person.
The report's author, CMS partner Kenny Henderson, said: "The
numbers are so other-worldly because very few of those involved --
particularly in the case of opt-out claims -- are aware of these
actions on their behalf."
Others challenged that assertion. Desiree Maghoo, founder of public
relations firm Questor Consulting, commented: "To say consumers and
businesses aren't aware of claims being brought on their behalf is
not backed up by any facts in this report." She also noted the
Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) required class representatives to
publicise class actions.
Class representatives, Maghoo said, had kept affected consumers and
businesses updated on developments in the legal action, with the
media proving to be very effective in this regard.
Gus Selitto, founding partner of Byfield Consultancy, said building
awareness of claims, why they are being launched and how they are
being defended needed consideration as part of a long-term
strategy.
"As the class action system continues to mature across Europe,
there is also a job to build consumer awareness, trust and
confidence in how the system works and why it's important for
access to justice and consumer redress," Selitto said. "Again,
effective PR and communication lies at the heart of this."
Elsewhere, there was support for CMS's findings from former
Conservative MP Seema Kennedy OBE, the executive director of the
Fair Civil Justice group and a senior consultant at Global Counsel,
a public affairs firm headed by Lord Mandelson.
Fair Civil Justice was launched in London in 2022 by the Institute
for Legal Reform, a group affiliated to the US Chamber of Commerce,
to raise awareness of the "increasing presence of a predatory
claims culture" in the UK and find ways to tackle it, according to
its website. CMS was commissioned by Fair Civil Justice last year
to conduct research into the way that claimant law firms advertise
so-called "no-win/no-fee" claims.
Kennedy commented that CMS's class action report "should act as a
wake-up call for policymakers and consumers across the country. The
UK is sleepwalking into a US-style litigation environment, where
lawyers and funders benefit at the expense of claimants and true
access to justice. The evidence is clear: the rapid growth in class
actions in the UK is not good for consumers, business or our
society."
However, the CMS report was roundly criticised by Charlie Morris,
chief investment officer at litigation funder Woodsford, who said:
"The commentary in and around this report is nakedly one-sided,
focusing on the risks for big business rather than the benefits for
consumers and small business, and needs to be taken with a large
dollop of salt."
Morris accused the Fair Civil Justice campaign of being "a
mouthpiece for the US Chamber of Commerce", adding it was "not
truly interested in fairness for consumers".
Morris emphasised the importance of giving consumers and small
businesses greater access to justice and equality of arms in
holding large businesses accountable, saying that the courts
recognised that class actions were crucial for deterring bad
corporate behaviour, which he said benefited society as a whole.
Noting the differences between the US and UK legal systems,
including the absence of the loser-pays rule, he added it was
"nonsense" to suggest that the growth of class actions in the UK
meant welcoming US-style litigation. He stressed the use of funding
by small businesses, corporate claimants and consumers, noting that
for consumers "legal aid from the government has all but dried
up."
Henderson, however, stood by the findings. "The report reflects a
true picture of class action risk, analysing key data and trends
from recent years," he said. "The numbers don't lie: this year's
data shows a continued rise in class actions across Europe, with
the main beneficiaries of these claims being law firms and
litigation funders -- not consumers."
Kennedy added: "We represent British consumers and businesses. If
litigation funders truly prioritise access to justice over profits,
they should welcome greater transparency and stronger safeguards
for this high-risk financial product." [GN]
[*] Securities Class Action Filings Rise in First Half of 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
Risk & Insurance reports that securities class action filings
increased in the first half of 2024 compared to the second half of
2023, according to a midyear report by Cornerstone Research and the
Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.
The report found that 112 securities class actions were filed in
federal and state courts in the first half of 2024, marking an
increase from the 103 class actions filed in the second half of
2023.
Core filings -- state and federal securities lawsuits without
merger and acquisition allegations -- accounted for all but two of
those lawsuits, with only two federal M&A filings in the first
half, the report found.
The survey tracks core filing activity in various categories of
liability trends, with artificial intelligence (AI)-related claims
a new category with this report.
"While we've seen AI-related filings in recent years, the first
half of 2024 marks the beginning of tracking these filings as a
trend category. The growing prominence of AI in the business models
of many companies may lead to more filings in the future," said
Alexander "Sasha" Aganin, the report's coauthor and a Cornerstone
Research senior vice president. "Meanwhile, SPAC-related filings
are on pace to decline steeply relative to recent years, and
cryptocurrency-related filings, which have been hot for the past
several years, experienced a sharp decline."
Trend Categories of Core Federal Filings
AI Claims
The report began tracking AI-related class action filings in H1
2024. There were six AI-related federal filings in the first half
of 2024, the same level as in all of 2023 and 2022, the report
shows.
"While AI related filings are not new, the growing prominence of AI
in the business models of many companies may lead to an increase of
such filings in the future," the report's authors stated.
"The potential for real liability resulting from artificial
intelligence is among the more interesting developments of the past
six months," stated former Securities and Exchange Commission
commissioner Joseph Grundfest, professor emeritus at Stanford Law
School.
COVID-19
There were seven COVID-19-related filings in the first half,
compared to 11 in all of 2023 and 20 in 2022, the report found.
"The number of COVID-19 filings in 2024 is on track to exceed the
number of such filings in 2023," the report noted. "These
COVID-19-related filings often include allegations related to
issues resulting from the pandemic's impact on product demand."
Cyptocurrency
Only three cryptocurrency-related class actions were filed in the
first half, down from 14 in 2023 and 23 in 2022.
"The number of cryptocurrency-related filings in 2024 H1 (three)
was in line with 2023 H2 (three), but down sharply from 2023 H1
(11)," the report noted.
Cybersecurity
"There were no cybersecurity-related filings in 2024, representing
a continued decline from the 2021 high of seven filings," the
report stated. In 2023, there were three cybersecurity-related
filings, while 2022 had four.
SPACs
Filings related to Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)
are expected to decline, with five filings in the first half,
compared with 25 in all of 2023 and 28 in 2022.
Impact of Class Actions on Market Capitalization
The report tracks changes in the dollar value of a defendant's
market capitalization between the trading day immediately before
the end of the class period and the trading day immediately
afterward. The Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) Index® reached $185
billion in the first half of 2024, a 9% increase from the second
half of 2023. The H1 value marked the sixth-consecutive quarter
that the index's value exceeded the 1997-2023 semiannual average of
$119 billion.
The report also tracks changes in a defendant company's market
capitalization between the trading day with the highest market cap
during the class period and the trading day immediately following
the end of the class period. The Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL) Index®
decreased by 9% to $908 billion in the first half of 2024, compared
with the record high set in the first half of 2023. The H1 MDL
value remains 51% above the historical semiannual average of $600
billion.
The two indexes "should not be considered an indicator of liability
or measure of potential dates," the report explained. "Instead, it
estimates the impact of all information revelated during or at the
end of the class period, including information unrelated to the
litigation." [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 ***