/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240827.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, August 27, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 172
Headlines
3M CO: Hoosick Falls to Receive $3-Mil. in PFAs Class Settlement
3M COMPANY: Arnold Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Betty Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Collier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Cox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Hebert Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
ADIDAS AG: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
AIR VOICE: Berkley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York
ALIGNMENT HEALTHCARE: Dabney Class Suit Settlement for Court OK
ALLEVIATE TAX: Moghadam Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
ALLIANT CREDIT: Discrimination Class Settlement Gets Final Nod
AMERI-FORCE CRAFT: Carroll Suit Removed to S.D. California
ARDELYX INC: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors
ASSET RECOVERY: Panno Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
AT&T MOBILITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pacheco Alleges
ATHIRA PHARMA: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for Oct. 25
BABOLAT VS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Suit Says
BANANA REPUBLIC: French Suit Removed to N.D. California
BANNOCKBURN STORAGE: Carlson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BH 1025: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Class Suit Alleges
BH MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Response in Chiodini Due August 29
BLOOMBERG LP: Sayeed Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
BLUEPRINT MEDICINES: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit
BOAR'S HEAD: Faces Chuskas Class Suit Over Contaminated Deli Meat
BOZZUTO'S INC: Seeks to Seal Exhibits in Loiseau Class Action
BREAKING GROUND: Pre-Trial Management Order Entered in Williams
BUMBLE BEE: Appeals Court Upholds Denial of Conspiracy Suit Cert.
BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Continues to Defend Rose Class Suit
C.C. FILSON CO: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CANDID COLOR: Faces Class Suit Over Biometric Data Collection
CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend 2019 Cybersecurity Class Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend Interchange Fees Class Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend Savings Account Class Suit
CARESOURCE AND PROGRESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Clay Says
CARTER'S INC: Booth Files Suit in D. Oregon
CBZ MANAGEMENT: Tenants Sue Aurora Shutters Apartment Complex
CCFI COMPANIES: Clark Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
CCFI COMPANIES: Yancey Suit Removed to E.D. California
CHEMOURS CO: Nix Bid to Designate Individuals to Testify Tossed
CHEMOURS CO: Water Contamination Class Suit Pending in Georgia
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Delvalle Sues Over False Representation
COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Underwood Class Suit
COLORADO: Fails to Provide Inmates' Mandated Treatment, Suit Says
COLUMBUS LIFE: Class Cert Bid Filing in William Due Nov. 14, 2025
COSTA DEL: Parties in Reed Suit Must File Case Management Report
CRACKER BARREL: Griffin Seeks Proper Wages for Servers
CRASH CHAMPIONS: Hein Wage Transparency Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
CSC SERVICEWORKS INC: Conaway Files Suit in E.D. New York
CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
DAIRYLAND USA: Scheduling Order Entered Orbetta Class Action
DANZAS CORPORATION: Williams Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wage
DISTRIBUTION SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Cyber Incident Suit
DMM SOLUTIONS: Grimmett Sues Over Racketeering Activity
DREAM GAMES: Royal Match Mobile Game "Addictive," Class Suit Says
DUN & BRADSTREET: Continues to Defend Batis Class Suit
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery in Debose Class Suit Ongoing
EDUCATORS BENEFIT: Gepson Files Suit in D. Minnesota
EGGLAND'S BEST: Cavallaro-Kearins Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
EGGLAND'S BEST: Delaney Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
EIDP INC: Continues to Defend Baker Class Suit
EL CENTRO: Gonzalez Data Breach Suit Removed to W.D. Texas
EMBANET-COMPASS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response
EOS ENERGY: Proposed Class Action Settlement Set October 17
ESOIL 1-27-45-0017: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Claims
EVOLVE BANK: Biron Sues Over Private Data Breach
EXTREME NETWORKS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 15
FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Seeks Amendment of Class Cert Denial
FATHOM REALTY: Ahmad Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
FEDEX GROUND: Court Stays Ortiz-Dixon Suit
FORT WAYNE, IN: Aker Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
FREEGO USA INC: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GAP INC: Cho Suit Removed to N.D. California
GEISINGER HEALTH: Alicea Sues Over Unlawful Data Security
GEISINGER HEALTH: Reviello Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
GEN DIGITAL: Conohan Sues Over Unlawful Data Sharing
GENESCO INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Alleges
GIANT COMPANY: Must Oppose Holbert Class Cert Bid by August 30
GILEAD SCIENCES: Hearing on Searcy Class Cert Bid Set for Sept. 5
GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class
GOALS PLASTIC: District Court Decertifies FLSA Class Action Suit
GRUPO GITANO: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Andrews Suit Alleges
HC CONCRETE: Amended Case Management Order Modified in Avelar Suit
HERTZ GLOBAL: Faces Doller Securities Class Suit
HESS BAKKEN: Wins Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Penman Suit
HILL CONSTRUCTION: Callaway Sues Over Defective Labor and Materials
HILL'S PET: Initial Disclosure in Ketonatural Suit Due Sept. 16
HOLMAN'S FAMILY: Fails to Pay Caretaker's OT Wages, Black Alleges
HOME PARTNERS: Richmond Must File Amended Class Cert Bid
HSBC BANK: Ni Suit Seeks Class Certification
HUMANA INC: Faces Iron Workers' Fund Securities Suit
IDAHO: Rossow "THC" Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
INDEPENDENCE REALTY: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
INJURED WORKERS: Settlement Class Gets Conditional Certification
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Settlement in Epperson Gets Initial Nod
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
J C K AMERICAN TRANSPORT: Khokhar Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
JB ECOM: Herrera Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance
JDC AUTO: Bielanski Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Text Messages
JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dumas Suit Says
JINDAL POLY: Shareholders Seek to Join Class Action Suit
JUSTICE RESOURCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bodem Alleges
KALEIDA HEALTH: Must File Class Cert Bid Response by Oct. 30
LAC DU FLAMBEAU, WI: Settles Predatory Lending Suit for $37.4MM
LECLERC INSTITUTION: Court Passes Class Suit Over Jail Conditions
LGBCOIN LTD: Class Cert Bid Response Due Oct. 2
LIVANOVA USA: Chaudhry Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
LTF CLUB: Turner Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Employees
MDL 2903: Settlement in Fieker v Fisher-Price Wins Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Settlement in Hanson v. Fisher-Price Wins Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Settlement in Kimmel v Fisher-Price Gets Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Settlement in Mulvey v Fisher-Price Wins Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Settlement in Pasternacki v Fisher-Price Gets Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Settlement in Willis v Fisher-Price Wins Initial Nod
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Court Appoints Cuomo as Lead Plaintiff
META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Block Class Suit Over Inflated Metrics
META PLATFORMS: Starzinski Suit Removed to N.D. California
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Sept. 12 Donahue Phone Conference Adjourned
MICHAEL NIERENBERG: Adler Sues Over Certificate Violation
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Wolf Suit Removed to W.D. Tennessee
MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH: Moilanen Files Suit in D. Minnesota
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Soberg Alleges
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Schuster Class Action Suit Filed in. D. Minn.
MONTE NIDO: Bracco Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
MONTE NIDO: Casey Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
MOXION POWER CO: Hamilton Files Suit in D. Delaware
MRS. FIELDS GIFTS: Bid to Dismiss Curry Class Action Tossed
MULTIPLAN INC: Robinson Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces Cassina Suit Over Membership Fees
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Attys Gain Big Payout in $2.7BB Antitrust Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Antitrust Class Action Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Masterson Alleges Antitrust Law Violations
NATIONAL ENROLLMENT: Human Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Cockrell Sues Over Illegally Increased Balance
NEW SOUTH WALES: Candidates Sue Over Unextended Nomination Period
NEW YORK: General Pre-Trial Management Order Entered in J.Z. Suit
NEXT BRIDGE HYDROCARBONS: Targgart Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
NFI INTERACTIVE: Removes Jackson Suit to N.D. Ill.
NYS ESSENTIAL: Aquilino Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
OLDCASTLE INFRASTRUCTURE: Delgado Suit Removed to E.D. California
OLLY PUBLIC BENEFIT: Tarvin Suit Removed to C.D. California
OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
PACKAGING EXCHANGE: Martin Files TCPA Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PANERA LLC: Campbell Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
PANERA LLC: Ramirez Suit Removed to E.D. California
PARKING REVENUE: Brooks Sues Over Privacy Protection Act Breach
PBF ENERGY: Answering Brief in Goldstein Suit Due September 25
PBF ENERGY: Discovery in Piscitelli Class Suit Ongoing
PDD HOLDINGS INC: Baxter Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
PDD HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 15
PEABODY TWENTYMILE: Acheson Suit Removed to D. Colorado
PEARL CORP INC: Sall Files TCPA Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PEGASO ENERGY: Long Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
PEPSICO INC: False Advertising Class Suit Can Proceed, Judge Says
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Foos Files Suit in D. New Mexico
PET PROS LLC: Wellington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PIXI INC: Kelly Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
PMC HOME & AUTO: Grochowski Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
PRINCESS CRUISES: Remove Searle Suit to C.D. Calif.
PRISMA HEALTH MEDICAL: Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
PROUD MOMENTS: Malkin Suit Seeks to Modify Schedule
QUIDELORTHO CORP: Faces Bristol County Retirement System Class Suit
RADEPA ENTERPRISES: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties
RALEY'S ARIZONA: Kristapher Privacy Suit Removed to D. Ariz.
RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Class Settlement in Owen Gets Initial Nod
RETSEL CORPORATION: Seeks to Ensure Focus Remains on Claims in NDN
ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Ventling Files Suit in D. Wyoming
RTS HOLDINGS: Smith Class Action Suit Filed in Cal. Super.
RUSHMORE LOAN: O'Brien Seeks to Certify Connecticut Citizens Class
RXO LAST: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Gonzalez Tossed
SALVATION ARMY: Van Horn's Bid to Alter Judgment Tossed
SANYO FOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Shin Suit
SCANIA AG: Deadline for Class Registration Extended to Mid-October
SECOND NATURE: Court to Set Class Certification Briefing Deadlines
SHADY GROVE: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information
SHERATON OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stinar Alleges
SIEMENS CORPORATION: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Balmores Class Suit
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Carovillano Class Suit
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Kirkpatrick Class Suit
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Posternock Class Suit
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Stevenson Class Suit
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Woods Class Suit
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Faces Wilson Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SKYWAY CONCESSION: Rowe Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SOGNO TOURS LLC: Naranjo Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
STABILITY AI: Artists May Pursue AI Copyright Class Action
STRATEGIX MANAGEMENT: Faces Darby Class Action Lawsuit in Cal. Sup.
SUNNOVA ENERGY: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in Texas
SUNPOWER CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SYMBOTIC INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SYMBOTIC INC: Fox Sues Over Federal Securities Laws Violation
TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Stary Securities Class Suit
TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Waits Securities Class Suit
TENNESSEE GAS: Parties Seeks Jan. 27, 2025 Fact Discovery Deadline
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Webb Securities Suit Dismissed
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Asthma Inhaler
TIMBER CANNABIS: Underwood Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Tips
TRADITA CORP: Fails to Pay Waiter's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
TRINITY ENVIRONMENTAL: Enriquez Alleges FLSA Violations
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Ambridge Area Class Suit
TRUEACCORD CORP: Alexis Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Settlement in Miller Suit Initially OK'd
TRUPANION INC: O'Connor Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
TTEC SERVICES: Wilfong Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
TWITTER INC: Faces Dutch Class Suit Over Data Security Measures
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Martin Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
UDEMY INC: Continues to Defend Saleh Video Privacy Protection Suit
UNILEVER UNITED: Class Cert Bid in Little Suit Due August 25, 2025
UNITED AIRLINES: Court Dismisses SAF Greenwashing Class Suit
UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY: Chang Sues Over Unpaid Proper Wages
UNITED STATES: Jenke Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
UNITED WATER: Seeks Leave to Allow Expert to Testify via Zoom
UNO CAFE & BILLIARDS: Loaiza Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
UPBOUND GROUP: Continues to Defend McBurnie Class Suit
VAUGHAN MCLEAN: Removes Demetro Suit to District of Columbia
VENTURA COUNTY CREDIT: Cline Files TCPA Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VENTURA ORTHOPEDICS: Ayala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VIA RENEWABLES: Faces Amburgey Class Suit in Delaware
VIA RENEWABLES: Faces Taylor Class Suit in Delaware
VIA RENEWABLES: Major Energy Continues to Defend Glikin Class Suit
VIA RENEWABLES: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Foote Suit
VICOR CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Massachusetts Court
VICOR CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Hardy et al. Sue Over Undisclosed Fuel Tank Defect
VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Ravarino Class Suit
WARNER MUSIC: Seeks to Seal Exhibits in Hall Class Action
WARREN GENERAL: Removes Brunecz Suit to W.D. of Penn.
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Mortgage Fair Lending Suit
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Settlement Hearing in PAGA Suit Set for Oct. 4
WOLFSPEED INC: Cadriel Suit Removed to N.D. California
*********
3M CO: Hoosick Falls to Receive $3-Mil. in PFAs Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Ryan, writing for CBS6 News, reports that the Village of
Hoosick Falls expects to receive $3 million over the next 3 years
as a result of the Village joining a national class action
settlement related to PFAS.
By joining the 3M Class Action Settlement, the Village of Hoosick
Falls will be receiving funds from part of the nearly $12 Billion
settlement that involves PFAS Manufacturer 3M and DuPont. 3M has
been estimated to pay around $10.5 billion as part of this
settlement, while DuPont expected to pay over $1 billion.
In a video posted to the Village's social media, Mayor Allen
explained the significance of the situation. "When comparing our
situation to other locations that have faced PFAS contamination in
drinking water, we find ourselves surprisingly ahead of the curve:
we have a permanent filtration system and a brand-new water source
arriving soon, and the vast majority of this was paid for by the
responsible parties."
This settlement is separate from and unrelated to the Village's
ongoing discussions and legal matters with Saint-Gobain Performance
Plastics and Honeywell International. Both companies were named as
the responsible parties for the PFOA contamination by NYS DEC and
the US EPA. Along with a permanent GAC Filtration system (that has
been operating since 2017), the companies have been directed to
provide a new water supply to the Village. That new groundwater
supply, located more than a mile away from the Village, is
currently under construction, with early 2025 as the expected time
the new water source will be online and operational.
"These accomplishments are a product of the Village's continued
advocacy by the community, its elected officials, consultants, and
attorneys, as well as the regulatory work and oversight provided by
New York State," Mayor Allen said. "The results of our efforts have
led to a historic response to PFAS contamination that serves as a
model for other communities as to what can be accomplished." [GN]
3M COMPANY: Arnold Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Arnold, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-04148-RMG (D.S.C., July 25, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
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. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during Plaintiff's service as a seaman in the
United States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Betty Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Betty, individually and as Personal
Representative/Administrator/ Executor of the Estate of Lawrence
Betty, deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No.
2:24-cv-04482-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 2024), is brought for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS
from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein
including death.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Mary Betty, is the personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Lawrence
Betty who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF
in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
firefighter and was diagnosed with liver cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Collier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Collier and Kareena Collier, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.;
FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC
INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY;
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET
MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS
LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:24-cv-04454-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14, 2024), is brought for
personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff, Larry Collier in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff, Larry
Collier, was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants'
AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the
proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption,
inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF
products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions
and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Larry Collier regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career in the Navy and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, prostate cancer and/or other
medical related conditions as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Cox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------
James Cox and Rebecca Cox, his wife, and other similarly situated
v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company);
AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S.
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.;
FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC
INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY;
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET
MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS
LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:24-cv-04483-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 2024), is brought for
personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff, James Cox, in their intended manner, without significant
change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff, James Cox, was
unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF
products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the
proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption,
inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF
products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions
and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff James Cox regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career in the Navy and was diagnosed with thyroid disease
and/or other medical related conditions as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Hebert Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acadian Ambulance
Service Inc. The case is styled as Ryan Hebert, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Acadian Ambulance
Service Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01102-DCJ-CBW (W.D. La., Aug. 15,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Acadian Ambulance -- https://acadianambulance.com/ -- is an
employee-owner private ambulance service that covers most of the
state of Louisiana, a large portion of Texas, two counties in
Tennessee, and one county in Mississippi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq.
LEMMON LAW FIRM (NO)
5301 Canal Blvd Ste A
New Orleans, LA 70124
Phone: (985) 783-6789
Email: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
ADIDAS AG: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Adidas AG has won a court order dismissing a class-action lawsuit
that claims the German sneaker giant violated securities laws by
failing to warn its shareholders about Ye's offensive behavior.
The case claimed that Adidas knew about serious problems with Ye
(formerly Kanye West) as far back as 2018 but failed to disclose
them, leaving investors facing losses when the company finally
ended the partnership in 2022 over Ye's antisemitic tirades and
erratic behavior.
In a ruling Friday (Aug. 16), Judge Karin Immergut said she did not
condone Ye's "erratic, inappropriate, and antisemitic" behavior and
said it was "troubling" that it had happened at Adidas, but that it
did not rise to the level of securities fraud.
"The question before this court is not whether to admonish Ye or
hold Adidas morally accountable for Ye's conduct," Immergut wrote.
"Rather, this Court is faced with a precise legal question: has
Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded facts showing that Adidas misled
investors and thereby committed federal securities fraud? On the
current record before this Court, the answer is no."
Adidas ran a lucrative collaboration with Ye and his Yeezy apparel
brand for nearly a decade. But the party ended in 2022, when the
sneaker company (and many others) cut ties with the embattled
rapper amid a wave of offensive statements he made about Jewish
people. In an October 2022 statement announcing the split, Adidas
said the rapper's statements were "unacceptable, hateful and
dangerous."
It's been a messy breakup for Adidas. The split contributed to a
loss of $655 million in sales for the last three months of 2022 and
left Adidas holding $1.3 billion worth of unsold Yeezys and facing
tricky questions about how to dispose of them responsibly. Adidas
also battled Ye in court over millions in company funds and
disclosed that it was litigating other aspects of the divorce in
private arbitration.
In May 2023, a group of investors took Adidas to court over the
breakup, arguing that Adidas executives had been aware for years of
the potential harm that could come from the Ye partnership but had
failed to publicly share such concerns with shareholders, as
required by U.S. securities law.
In particular, the lawsuit cited a November 2022 Wall Street
Journal article reporting that Adidas executives feared for years
that the Yeezy relationship could "blow up at any moment." The
article reported that West had made antisemitic comments in front
of Adidas staffers, including suggesting that an album be named
after Adolf Hitler. The Journal story also highlighted a 2018
presentation to then-CEO Kasper Rørsted that detailed the risks of
the arrangement and contemplated cutting ties with him.
But in a ruling dated August 16, Judge Immergut sided with
arguments from Adidas that the company's disclosure statements had
not misled investors about the risk posed by Ye. In one passage,
she reminded the plaintiffs that Ye had shown signs of erratic
behavior well before the split with Adidas -- quoting statements in
which he said that "racism is a dated concept" and that slavery was
a "choice."
"This court would be remiss not to note the very public nature of
Ye's behavior before Fall 2022," the judge wrote. "After all,
courts are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary
citizens are free."
The judge gave the investors one final chance to refile an updated
version of their case against Adidas, but she cast doubt on whether
they could overcome the problems she had identified in her ruling.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return a request for
comment. [GN]
AIR VOICE: Berkley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Air Voice Wireless
LLC. The case is styled as Dana Berkley, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Air Voice Wireless LLC doing
business as: AirTalk Wireless, Case No. 1:24-cv-01004-MAD-CFH
(N.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
AirVoice Wireless -- https://airvoicewireless.com/ -- offers
affordable and premium prepaid plans with a large collection of
phones.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 Ne 1st Ave, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
ALIGNMENT HEALTHCARE: Dabney Class Suit Settlement for Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alignment Healthcare, 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 1, 2024, that the Dabney labor
class suit settlement is for the approval of the Orange County
Superior Court.
On April 27, 2022, a former employee of the Company filed a
purported class action lawsuit (Dabney v. Alignment Healthcare USA,
LLC, Orange County Superior Court) alleging that the Company failed
to provide hourly employees with required meal and rest breaks or
pay such workers a premium equal to an hour of pay for missed meal
or rest breaks. Discovery in the matter commenced on June 8, 2022.
On September 2, 2022, the court granted a stay of proceedings and
discovery in anticipation of mediation scheduled for August 2023.
On August 15, 2023, the Company entered into a tentative settlement
of the action in consideration of an aggregate payment of $913.
The settlement of this matter is subject to approval by the court
which is expected in the third quarter of 2024.
As a result of the tentative settlement, the Company has accrued
for a potential liability of $913 as of June 30, 2024 and December
31, 2023 for this matter, which was recorded within accounts
payable and accrued expenses on the consolidated balance sheet and
selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated
statement of operations.
Alignment is a publicly traded company incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in Orange, CA.
The company partners with leading health care systems and Medicare
advantage plans in order to provide health care that is more
convenient and coordinated for senior citizens, and that results in
improved outcomes. Its common stock is traded on the Nasdaq under
the ticker symbol ALHC. [BN]
ALLEVIATE TAX: Moghadam Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alleviate Tax, LLC.
The case is styled as Farbod Hadizadeh Moghadam, Nigel Lucombe,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Alleviate Tax, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01810 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 16,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Alleviate Tax LLC -- https://alleviatetax.com/ -- is a company
which helps reach a tax relief agreement with the IRS.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
ALLIANT CREDIT: Discrimination Class Settlement Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
MALDEF reports that a federal judge has granted final approval of a
class-action settlement between Alliant Credit Union and a group of
immigrants who were denied credit because of their immigration
status.
MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund)
represents DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients
and other immigrants who comprise the settlement class.
As part of the agreement, the Chicago-based credit union will
change its policies and establish a settlement fund of $86,750 to
be paid to class members. The settlement is one of several MALDEF
has reached with financial institutions that deny services to DACA
recipients and other immigrants based on their status rather than
credit-worthiness.
The settlement provides that California class members will receive
$2,500 each, while national class members will receive $250 each.
The credit union must also pay attorney's fees and other costs.
"After more than two years since the complaint was filed, the
plaintiffs and class members will receive substantial relief
achieved through settlement with Alliant," said MALDEF staff
attorney Luis Lozada. "More important are the policy changes that
will allow DACA recipients and other immigrants access to the same
financial products and credit based on their ability to repay like
anyone else."
MALDEF filed suit in 2022 on behalf of Yuliana Camacho, 29, of
Salinas, California. Camacho had applied to Alliant for an auto
loan but was told that she was ineligible because she was a
recipient of DACA and not a citizen or legal permanent resident of
the United States.
"I am happy this had a good outcome," said Camacho. "Alliant needed
to change its policies, which is why I contacted MALDEF for
support. It is surprising to see that in this day and age,
companies have policies that discriminate against certain groups.
Thank you to all the attorneys who worked on this case. This is a
huge win!"
Another plaintiff, Joshua Soto Lopez, 28, of Visalia, California,
joined the lawsuit in 2024 as a national class representative. He
was denied a home equity line of credit because of his DACA
status.
"I am relieved and pleased that the court has approved the
class-action settlement," said Soto Lopez. "This is an important
step toward justice for DACA recipients everywhere who were
affected, and it represents a meaningful resolution to one of the
issues we've faced being marginalized due to our immigration
status."
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California and brought claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981
of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 and California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
Since 2017, MALDEF has filed 15 lawsuits challenging the policies
of financial institutions that discriminate against DACA
recipients. [GN]
AMERI-FORCE CRAFT: Carroll Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marion J. Carroll, an individual and on 12
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ameri-Force Craft
Services, Inc., National Steel and Shipbuilding Company doing
business as: Dynamics Nassco CA, Misael Vidama, Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 37-02024-00026601-CU-OE-CTL was removed from
the Superior Court of California, San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on Aug. 14, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01443-RSH-BJC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Ameri-Force -- https://ameriforce.com/ -- is a leading skilled
trades staffing company dedicated to providing reliable workforce
solutions across various industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Daniel Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
zach@tomorrowlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Aaron Alan Buckley, Esq.
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 237-5200
Fax: (619) 615-0700
Email: aaron.buckley@quarles.com
ARDELYX INC: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Ardelyx, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARDX) securities between
October 31, 2023 and July 1, 2024. Ardelyx is a biotechnology
company focused on developing and commercializing therapies for,
among other things, patients with chronic kidney disease ("CKD").
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Ardelyx, Inc. (ARDX) Misled Investors Regarding its Business
Prospects
According to the complaint, during the class period, in its Forms
10-Q filed on October 31, 2023, and May 2, 2024, and in its Form
10-K filed on February 22, 2024, Ardelyx indicated that it would
apply to include XPHOZAH (its drug that reduces elevated levels of
phosphorus in the bloodstream in CKD patients on dialysis who
either cannot tolerate or did not adequately respond to other
therapies) in TDAPA. Further, on an earnings call on May 2, 2024,
defendant Michael Raab advised analysts that "our intent is to
enter TDAPA."
However, defendants failed to disclose that in reality, Ardelyx had
not yet reached a firm decision concerning whether or not to apply
to include XPHOZAH in TDAPA, and could not, in fact, decide whether
or not to submit such an application to CMS until after defendants
first reviewed CMS's proposed Calendar Year 2025 ESRD PPS rule,
which was only issued on June 27, 2024.
On July 2, 2024, Ardelyx issued a press release announcing that it
had chosen not to apply to include XPHOZAH in TDAPA. This sudden
change in strategy for XPHOZAH shocked the market, and upon the
above news, Ardelyx's stock price fell $2.29 per share, or 30.25%,
to close at $5.28 per share on July 2, 2024.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Ardelyx, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court by
October 15, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
ASSET RECOVERY: Panno Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
-------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN PANNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSET RECOVERY BUREAU, LLC, Defendant, case
No. 8:24-cv-01786-TPB-UAM (M.D. Fla., July 29, 2024) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The case is assigned to Judge Thomas P. Barber.
Asset Recovery Bureau, LLC is a New York based third party
collection agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
Suite 1744 110 S.E. 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
- and -
Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (813) 340-8838
Email: zane@jibraellaw.com
- and -
Gerald D Lane , Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th St Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
AT&T MOBILITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pacheco Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
GIOVANNY PACHECO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC; and
DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV18584
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 26, 2024) is an action against
the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.
Plaintiff Pacheco was employed by the Defendant as store manager.
AT&T Mobility LLC provides wireless voice and data communications
services. The Company offers on-demand video streaming, post-paid,
prepaid, enterprise voice, and data, as well as local,
long-distance, and roaming services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
Alexandra R. McIntosh, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (424) 292-2350
Fax: (424) 292-2355
Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
amcintosh@haineslawgroup.com
ATHIRA PHARMA: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for Oct. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Athira Pharma 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 1, 2024, that the securities class
suit settlement final approval hearing is set for October 25,
2024.
Athira Pharma 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 1, 2024, that the Wang securities
class suit settlement final approval hearing is set for October 25,
2024.
On June 25, 2021, plaintiffs Fan Wang and Hang Gao filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and the
Company's former chief executive officer Dr. Leen Kawas, captioned
Wang v. Athira Pharma, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-00861.
Plaintiffs Wang and Gao assert claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or Exchange Act, and
SEC Rule 10b-5, alleging that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts
regarding the Company’s business.
Specifically, the Wang plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to
disclose to investors that certain research conducted by Dr. Kawas
was allegedly tainted by scientific misconduct during her doctoral
work at WSU, including the manipulation of data, and that as a
result, the defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading.
The Wang plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees.
That same day, on June 25, 2021, plaintiff Harshdeep Jawandha filed
a putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company,
Dr. Kawas, the Company's then chief financial officer, certain
members of the Company’s board of directors at the time of the
Company's initial public offering, or IPO, as well as the IPO
underwriters, captioned Jawandha v. Athira Pharma, Inc., et al.,
No. 2:21-cv-00862.
The Jawandha complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, or Securities Act, alleging that that
the Company's IPO registration statement was materially false and
misleading because it omitted to state that certain of Dr. Kawas's
published doctoral research papers at WSU contained allegedly
improperly altered images, that the research was allegedly
foundational to the Company's efforts to develop treatments for
Alzheimer's disease, and that the defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading.
The Jawandha plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
Also on June 25, 2021, plaintiffs Timothy Slyne and Tai Slyne filed
a putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company,
Dr. Kawas, the Company's then chief financial officer, and the same
members of the Company's board of directors and underwriters as in
the Jawandha complaint, captioned Slyne v. Athira Pharma, Inc. et
al., No. 2:21-cv-00864.
The Slyne complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, alleging that purported issues with Dr. Kawas's
doctoral research at WSU should have been disclosed in the
Company's IPO registration statement.
The Slyne plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages,
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and other equitable relief.
On August 9, 2021, the court issued an order consolidating the
three cases.
On October 5, 2021, the district court issued an order appointing
lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead and liaison
counsel.
On January 7, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and Sections 11, 12, and 15 of
the Securities Act.
The consolidated amended complaint is brought against the Company,
Dr. Kawas, the Company's then chief financial officer, certain
members of the Company's board of directors at the time of the
Company's IPO and secondary public offering, or SPO, and the IPO
and SPO underwriters.
As with the previous complaints, it is based on allegations that
the IPO and SPO registration statements and/or other public
statements were materially false and misleading because they
omitted to state that certain of Dr. Kawas' published doctoral
research papers at WSU contained allegedly improperly altered
images.
Lead plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, as well as
equitable and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and the
purported class.
On March 8, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss lead
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a
claim under the federal securities laws.
On July 29, 2022, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss.
The order dismissed the Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims
arising under the Exchange Act, dismissed the Section 11 claim
arising under the Securities Act as to all defendants other than
the Company and Dr. Kawas, dismissed the Section 12(a)(2) claim
arising under the Securities Act as to the lead plaintiffs, and
dismissed the Section 15 claim arising under the Securities Act
against all defendants other than Dr. Kawas.
The order permitted lead plaintiffs until August 19, 2022 to file a
second consolidated amended complaint.
Lead plaintiffs did not file a second consolidated amended
complaint.
On August 12, 2022, defendant Dr. Kawas filed a motion for partial
reconsideration of the court's July 29, 2022 order.
On October 24, 2022, the parties filed a (1) joint status report
and discovery plan and (2) stipulation and case scheduling order,
wherein the parties proposed deadlines for material case events,
including the completion of fact discovery, expert discovery, and
dispositive motion practice.
On November 2, 2022, the court entered an order setting certain
case deadlines.
On November 4, 2022, the Company and Dr. Kawas filed their
individual answers to the consolidated amended complaint.
In mid-November 2022, the parties began conducting fact discovery.
On March 10, 2023, following a mediation and the parties’
agreement in principle to settle the securities class action, the
court entered a stipulated order setting a deadline of April 28,
2023 for the parties to file a stipulation of settlement and for
lead plaintiffs to file a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, which the parties filed on that date.
The settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
On May 31, 2023, the court issued a minute order requiring the
parties to file a joint status report on or before June 30, 2023
addressing several aspects of the proposed settlement, including
revision of certain notices to putative class members regarding the
settlement, which the parties filed on that date.
On September 27, 2023, the court issued an order denying
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval without prejudice,
citing the motion's failure to satisfy the court’s questions and
concerns regarding traceability of certain Securities Act claims.
The court permitted plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for
preliminary approval, which plaintiffs filed on December 15, 2023.
On February 15, 2024, the court issued an order granting in part
and deferring in part plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary
approval and ordered the parties to submit a joint status report by
March 15, 2024 proposing a date on which the court may schedule the
final approval hearing, among other things.
In its order, the court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement and certified a class and two subclasses.
The court deferred ruling in part as to the proposed notices and
claim form relating to the settlement.
On March 29, 2024, the court issued a minute order (i) granting the
portion of plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval that
the court had previously deferred ruling on, (ii) setting a final
approval hearing, and (iii) ordering plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the proposed settlement to be filed on or before
September 26, 2024.
On April 30, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for an award of
attorneys’ fees and payment of expenses.
The settlement final approval hearing is scheduled for October 25,
2024.
Athira Pharma, Inc. is a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company based in Washington.
BABOLAT VS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BABOLAT VS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06119 (S.D.N.Y., August 13, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New
York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
Plaintiff Herrera alleges that Defendant violated these laws by
failing 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. By failing
to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer
screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services, says the Plaintiff.
Babolat VS North America, Inc. operates the Babolat online retail
store, as well as the Babolat interactive website,
https://www.babolat.com/us, which offers information about
Defendant's: sports equipment and footwear, as well as other types
of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and
internet pricing specials. [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
BANANA REPUBLIC: French Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Natasha French, Chang Cho, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Banana Republic
LLC, Banana Republic (Apparel) LLC, Case No. CGC-24-616504 was
removed from the Superior Court of California, San Francisco
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on Aug. 15, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-05216-DMR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Banana Republic -- https://bananarepublic.gap.com/ -- is an
American upscale clothing and accessories retailer owned by The
Gap.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Benjamin Drimmer, Esq.
Scott Gregory Braden, Esq.
Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1234 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (619) 762-1900
Fax: (858) 313-1850
Email: jim@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
todd@lcllp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Hillary Anne Hamilton, Esq.
Jason David Russell, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 687-5576
Fax: (213) 621-5576
Email: hillary.hamilton@skadden.com
jason.russell@skadden.com
BANNOCKBURN STORAGE: Carlson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lisa Carlson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BANNOCKBURN STORAGE LLC and METRO
STORAGE LLC, Case No. 2024MR00000307 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Lake County, Illinois, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 16, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-07351.
The State Court Action alleges that Defendants "unlawfully require
insurance at Metro Self-Storage Facilities." The Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants unlawfully required Plaintiff to carry tenant
insurance as a condition of renting a storage unit at their
Deerfield, Illinois location, and offered to Plaintiff the option
to purchase tenant insurance from them without disclosing to her
that it was not required as a condition of renting a unit. The
Plaintiff alleges that she has paid Defendants over $4,000 for
tenant insurance and claims she would not have paid for insurance
had she not been told it was required. The Plaintiff asserts three
counts against Metro Storage: "Consumer Fraud Act," "Common Law
Fraud," and "Unjust Enrichment."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
Caileen M. Crecco, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 South Clark Street, Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-739-4200
Fax: 312-419-0379 (FAX)
Email: courtecl@edcombs.com
The Defendants are represented by:
William F. Northrip, Esq.
Ian M. Hansen, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 704-7700
Email: wnorthrip@shb.com
ihansen@shb.com
BH 1025: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Class Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO v. BH 1025, LTD., and MOON THAI AVENTURA INC. d/b/a
OHHO RAMEN DIM SUM, Case No. 1:24-cv-23137 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 16,
2024) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 12181,
et seq. of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendants have allegedly discriminated against the individual
Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment
of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages
and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business
located in it, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. section 12182 et seq. The
individual Plaintiff often visits the Commercial Property in order
to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and
because it is approximately 36 miles from his residence and is near
other businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. The
Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses located
within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. These barriers
have each denied or diminished the Plaintiff's ability to visit the
Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of
the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of
injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff, the
lawsuit asserts.
Mr. Brito is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down)
and is therefore substantially limited in major life activities due
to his impairment. He requires the use of a wheelchair to
ambulate.
BH 1025 owned and operated a commercial property at 3405 North
Miami Beach Boulevard, North Miami Beach, Florida, 33160.[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
BH MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Response in Chiodini Due August 29
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chiodini v. BH Management
Services, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00147 (M.D. Fla., Filed Jan. 27,
2023), the Hon. Judge Carlos E. Mendoza entered an order granting
unopposed motion for extension of time to file response to motion
to certify class:
-- Response due by Aug. 29, 2024.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.
BH Management operates as a real estate management company.[CC]
BLOOMBERG LP: Sayeed Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEFESSA SAYEED, v.
BLOOMBERG, L.P., Case No. 1:24-cv-06101-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Gregory Woods entered an order referring case to a
United States Magistrate Judge for the following purpose:
General pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive
pretrial motions, and settlement; and
Dispositive motion (i.e., motion requiring Report and
Recommendation) Particular motion: Defendant’s anticipated
motion to
deny class certification and to dismiss.
Bloomberg is an American privately held financial, software, data,
and media company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZzJbwc at no extra
charge.[CC]
BLUEPRINT MEDICINES: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blueprint Medicines Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Johnson class suit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On June 7, 2024, a purported stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, with the caption Johnson v. Blueprint Medicines
Corporation, Case No. 2024-0625.
Plaintiff claims in the complaint that a "Proxy Access" provision
in the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective November
30, 2022, is invalid under Delaware law because it allegedly usurps
the right of stockholders to select the members of the board of
directors, and plaintiff seeks declaratory relief invalidating that
provision, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company has not yet responded to the complaint.
The Company does not believe the outcome of this matter will have a
material effect on its financial position, results of operations,
or liquidity.
Headquartered in Massachusetts, Blueprint Medicines Corporation is
a precision therapy company that develops medicines for cancers and
blood disorders. [BN]
BOAR'S HEAD: Faces Chuskas Class Suit Over Contaminated Deli Meat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA CHUSKAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BOAR'S HEAD PROVISIONS CO. INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-07343 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 16, 2024) is a class action lawsuit
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated who purchased Boar's Head and Old Country deli
meat, from May 2024 to August 2024, manufactured by the Defendant.
The deli meats include Boar's Head Strassburger Brand Liverwurst,
Boar's Head Old Fashioned Ham, Boar's Head Italian Cappy Style Ham,
Boar's Head Extra Hot Italian Cappy Style Ham, Boar’s Head
Bologna, Boar's Head Beef Bologna, Boar's Head Garlic Bologna,
Boar's Head Beef Salami, Boar's Head Steakhouse Roasted Bacon Heat
and Eat, and 71 deli meat products included in the second recall
under the "Boar's Head and Old Country" brand name with "sell by"
dates July 29, 2024 through October 17, 2024.
The Products are unfit for their intended consumption because they
are contaminated with the harmful bacteria, Listeria monocytogenes.
The Plaintiff became ill following consumption of the Products, the
suit alleges.
On July 26, 2024, the Defendant made the first recall of the
Products due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.
On July 30, 2024, there was a second recall of 71 products under
the brand name "Boar's Head and Old Country."
The outbreak began with the "Boar's Head Strassburger Brand
Liverwurst" product. However, Defendant recalled the rest of the
Products due to being produced on the same line and the same date.
The Center for Disease Control has stated that exposure to the
bacteria, Listeria monocytogenes can cause Listeriosis. Listeriosis
is a "serious infection usually caused by eating food contaminated
with the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes." Through marketing and
sale, the Defendant represented that the Products are safe for
people, including pregnant women and their newborns, adults aged 65
or older, and people with weakened immune systems. Because
Plaintiff was injured by the Products and all consumers purchased
the worthless and dangerous Products, which they purchased under
the presumption that the Products were safe, they have suffered
losses, the suit claims.
Defendant Boar's Head specializes in the manufacture and marketing
of processed foods sold in retail food chains and retail delis in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY |
ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: roy@poulinwilley.com
pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
BOZZUTO'S INC: Seeks to Seal Exhibits in Loiseau Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONRUDY LOISEAU et. al.,
v. BOZZUTO'S INC. et. al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01485-JCH (D. Conn.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order sealing portions of
six exhibits - Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 19, 31 & 44 -- submitted in
support of their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.
The portions of these exhibits sought to be sealed contain
confidential wage, disciplinary and/or termination information
regarding current or former employees of Bozzuto's who are not
parties to this action, and such information is not subject to
public disclosure under Connecticut's Personnel Files Act, Conn.
Gen. Stat. section 128a et. seq.
Bozzuto's Inc is a total service wholesale distributor of food and
household products.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hu4P1b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Shel D. Myers, Esq.
Miguel A. Escalera Jr., Esq.
Joseph W. McQuade, Esq.
Jennifer L. Dixon, Esq.
KAINEN, ESCALERA & MCHALE, P.C.
21 Oak Street, Suite 601
Hartford, CT 06106
Telephone: (860) 493-0870
Facsimile: (860) 493-0871
E-mail: smyers@kemlaw.com
mescalera@kemlaw.com
jmcquade@kemlaw.com
jdixon@kemlaw.com
BREAKING GROUND: Pre-Trial Management Order Entered in Williams
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERICK L. WILLIAMS, v.
BREAKING GROUND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION et al., Case
No. 1:22-cv-08715-AS-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel
Gorenstein entered a general pre-trial management order as
follows:
-- All pre-trial applications, including those relating to
scheduling and discovery, shall be made to the undersigned
(except motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings,
for
injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class
certification). All applications must comply with this
Court’s
Individual Practices, which are available through the
Clerk’s
Office or at:
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-gabriel-w-gorenstein
-- All discovery (as well as requests for admissions) must be
initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all
discovery.
-- Discovery motions -- that is, any application pursuant to
Rules
26 through 37 or 45 -- not only must comply with section 2.A.
of
the Court's Individual Practices but also must be made
promptly
after the cause for such a motion arises.
-- Any application for an extension of the time limitations with
respect to any deadlines in this matter must be made as soon
as
the cause for the extension becomes known to the party making
the
application and must be made in accordance with section 1.E of
the Court's Individual Practices.
Breaking Ground is a nonprofit social services organization in New
York City whose goal is to create high-quality permanent and
transitional housing for the homeless.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CHAJpU at no extra
charge.[CC]
BUMBLE BEE: Appeals Court Upholds Denial of Conspiracy Suit Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the
Court of Appeal for Ontario recently upheld the dismissal of a
motion to certify a class action lawsuit relating to an alleged
price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian market for canned tuna.
The appellant asserted that 11 defendants conspired to fix the
price of canned tuna sold in Canada, in violation of the federal
Competition Act, 1985 and common law. The appellant based the claim
on findings from U.S. antitrust proceedings.
These foreign proceedings found that three major tuna producers --
Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC (operating as Chicken
of the Sea International Inc.), and StarKist Co. -- conspired to
fix prices in the U.S. between 2011-13.
A similar conspiracy involving these U.S. companies and their
Canadian affiliates existed in Canada, the appellant claimed.
A judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the
certification motion and ruled that the case did not meet the
criteria for certification under Ontario's Class Proceedings Act,
1992 (CPA).
Specifically, the motion judge found that the appellant failed:
-- to plead material facts sufficient to disclose a reasonable
cause of action under s. 5(1)(a) of the CPA and to support the
existence of a similar conspiracy in Canada, even though the U.S.
conspiracy was proven
-- to give sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirement to show
"some basis in fact" for the existence of common issues across the
class under s. 5(1)(c) of the CPA, given that the evidence
presented focused on the U.S. market instead of Canadian consumers
-- to establish that a class proceeding would be the preferable
procedure under s. 5(1)(d) of the CPA, given the absence of common
issues
The appellant took the case to the appeal court. The respondents
asked the appeal court to quash the appeal on the basis that the
appeal fell within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Divisional
Court.
Refusal of certification upheld
In Lilleyman v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 2024 ONCA 606, the Ontario
Court of Appeal issued a ruling rejecting the respondents'
jurisdictional argument. The appeal court had jurisdiction over the
appeal, given that the motion judge issued an order that
effectively brought the proceeding to an end and that was
appealable to the appeal court.
The appeal court then addressed the appellant's substantive
arguments. First, the appeal court held that the motion judge
correctly applied the legal test for determining whether the
pleadings disclosed a cause of action. The appellant failed to
provide evidence of material facts linking the U.S. conspiracy to
the Canadian market, the appeal court said.
Second, the appeal court determined that the motion judge properly
applied the standard of "some basis in fact." The appellant failed
to provide minimal evidence to support the existence of common
issues affecting the class, the appeal court noted.
Lastly, given the lack of common issues, the motion judge correctly
concluded that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure
in this matter, the appeal court decided. [GN]
BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Continues to Defend Rose Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Butterfly Network 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Rose class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On February 16, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit, styled Rose
v. Butterfly Network, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The claims are against the Company and certain of its directors and
previous management as well as Longview and member of its then
board of directors, alleging that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions about its post-Business
Combination business and financial prospects.
The alleged class consists of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between January 12, 2021
and November 15, 2021, persons who exchanged Longview shares for
the Company's common stock, and persons who purchased Longview
stock pursuant, or traceable to, the Proxy/Registration Statement
filed with the SEC on November 27, 2020 or any amendment thereto.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.
Butterfly Network is a blank check company formed for the purpose
of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with
one or more businesses.
C.C. FILSON CO: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C.C. Filson Co., Case No. 0:24-cv-03253 (D. Minn., Aug.
14, 2024), is brought arising because Defendant's Website
(www.filson.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not
fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have
low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim
under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action
under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--Defendant makes available to its sighted
Website users.
Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind.
The Defendant offers apparel and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to, jackets, pants, jeans, outerwear, luggage,
hats, gloves, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
CANDID COLOR: Faces Class Suit Over Biometric Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Rattigan, writing for JDSupra, reports that Candid Color
Systems Inc., based in Oklahoma, faces a class action lawsuit for
its alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA). Candid Colors offers marketing services to
photographers, including photo-matching technology that allows
consumers to identify all of the photos taken of a particular
student at a graduation ceremony.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma, alleges that Candid Color collected and used
biometric information of individuals collected at high school and
college graduations without consent in violation of BIPA. The
complaint states that Candid Color used students' biometric
identifiers to identify students without first informing the
individuals and obtaining their consent before collection as
required by BIPA.
The complaint further alleges that Candid Color profited from the
biometric data collected from the students in violation of BIPA and
did not make available its biometric data collection and
destruction policies.
This is an interesting lawsuit: it was filed a few days after a
similar lawsuit against Candid Color was dismissed by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, which found
that Candid Color did not have enough contacts with Illinois to
support jurisdiction. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
Illinois residents whose biometric data was collected by Candid
Color. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages of $5,000 per reckless
or intentional BIPA violation and $1,000 per negligent violation.
We'll see if this suit proceeds and how the court applies the
recent amendments made to BIPA by the Illinois Governor's bill
amending BIPA. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend 2019 Cybersecurity Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the 2019 Cybersecurity incident
class suit.
The Company is named as a defendant in 5 putative consumer class
action cases in Canadian courts alleging harm from the 2019
Cybersecurity Incident and seeking various remedies, including
monetary and injunctive relief.
The lawsuits allege breach of contract, negligence, violations of
various privacy laws and a variety of other legal causes of action.
In August 2021, a trial court in Ontario dismissed with prejudice
one of these putative class actions, and on January 31, 2024, the
Court of Appeals of Ontario affirmed the trial court's decision.
The Plaintiffs have appealed to Canada's Supreme Court.
In the second quarter of 2022, a trial court in British Columbia
preliminarily certified a class of all impacted Canadian consumers
except those in Quebec.
The preliminary certification decision in British Columbia was
appealed, with both sides contesting portions of the ruling.
On July 4, 2024, the British Columbia Court of Appeals denied both
parties' appeals.
In the third quarter of 2023, a trial court in Quebec preliminarily
authorized a class of all impacted consumers in Quebec.
This decision also has been appealed.
The final two putative class actions, both of which are pending in
Alberta, are continuing in parallel, but currently remain at a
preliminary stage.
Capital One Financial Corporation provides commercial banking
services with its headquarters and principal place of business in
McLean, Virginia.[BN]
CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend Interchange Fees Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from interchange the interchanage fees
class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.
In 2005, a putative class of retail merchants filed antitrust
lawsuits against MasterCard and Visa and several issuing banks,
including Capital One, seeking both injunctive relief and monetary
damages for an alleged conspiracy by defendants to fix the level of
interchange fees.
The Visa and MasterCard payment networks and issuing banks entered
into settlement and judgment sharing agreements allocating the
liabilities of any judgment or settlement arising from all
interchange-related cases.
The lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes and were
settled in 2012.
The class settlement, however, was invalidated by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in June 2016, and the suit
was bifurcated into separate class actions seeking injunctive and
monetary relief, respectively.
In addition, numerous merchant groups opted out of the 2012
settlement.
The monetary relief class action settled for $5.5 billion and was
approved by the District Court in December 2019.
The Second Circuit affirmed the settlement in March 2023, and it is
final.
Some of the merchants that opted out of the monetary relief class
have brought cases, and some of those cases have settled and some
remain pending. Visa created a litigation escrow account following
its initial public offering of stock in 2008 that funds the portion
of these settlements attributable to Visa-allocated transactions.
Any settlement amounts based on MasterCard-allocated transactions
that have not already been paid are reflected in our reserves.
Visa and MasterCard reached a settlement with the injunctive relief
class and filed a motion for preliminary approval, which was denied
by the District Court in June 2024.
The parties will continue to litigate unless a settlement is
reached and approved.
Capital One Financial Corporation provides commercial banking
services with its headquarters and principal place of business in
McLean, Virginia.[BN]
CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend Savings Account Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia set the trial
date for the savings account class suit in July 2025.
On July 10, 2023, Capital One was sued in a putative class action
in the Eastern District of Virginia by savings account holders
alleging breach of contract and a variety of other causes of action
relating to Capital One's introduction of a new savings account
product with a higher interest rate than existing savings account
products.
Since the original suit, Capital One was also sued in six similar
putative class actions in federal courts in California, Illinois,
Ohio, Virginia, New Jersey and New York.
On March 20, 2024, Capital One filed with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation a motion to consolidate and transfer
related actions to the Eastern District of Virginia.
In June 2024, the Judicial Panel granted the motion and transferred
the related actions to the Eastern District of Virginia.
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 1, 2024 and the
court set a trial date in July 2025.
Capital One Financial Corporation provides commercial banking
services with its headquarters and principal place of business in
McLean, Virginia.[BN]
CARESOURCE AND PROGRESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Clay Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEIDRA CLAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARESOURCE and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION (RE:
MOVEIT CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION), Case No.
1:24-cv-12120 (D. Mass., Aug. 16, 2024) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff against Defendants on behalf of herself and all
other individuals who had their Personally Identifiable Information
("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") accessed and
hacked by malicious, unauthorized third parties that accessed and
removed the Private Information from Defendants' systems as early
as May 27, 2023.
Despite learning of the Data Breach more than two months earlier,
the Defendant did not send the Notice Letter to the Plaintiff until
Sept. 14, 2023. Thus, cybercriminals were given a head start in
misusing the Plaintiff's and the Class's PII/PHI before they were
even informed of what happened, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injuries as a result
of the Defendants' negligent conduct, including: (i) the potential
for the Plaintiff's and Class Members' exposed Private Information
to be sold and distributed on the dark web (if it has not been
already), (ii) a lifetime risk of identity theft, sharing, and
detrimental use of their sensitive information, and (iii)
out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection,
and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized
use of their Private Information, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff Clay is an adult individual and a resident and
citizen of Ohio, residing in Greenfield, Ohio.
CareSource is a managed care organization based in Dayton,
Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler St., NE, Ste. 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
- and -
Gary@lcllp.com, Esq.
Douglas J. McNamara
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, 5th Fl.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Fl.
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
cmoore@reesellp.com
CARTER'S INC: Booth Files Suit in D. Oregon
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carter's, Inc. The
case is styled as Ann Booth, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Carter's, Inc., Does 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 3:24-cv-01341-SI (D. Ore., Aug. 15, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Carter's, Inc. -- https://www.carters.com/ -- is a major American
designer and marketer of children's apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 682-5600
Email: kstephens@tousley.com
CBZ MANAGEMENT: Tenants Sue Aurora Shutters Apartment Complex
-------------------------------------------------------------
The tenants of an Aurora apartment complex that the city closed on
Tuesday, August 13, for unsafe and unfit living conditions filed a
class action lawsuit against the building's management on Monday,
August 12.
The lawsuit argues that there was no eviction notice provided for
the building's tenants, and said that the abatement would leave
some tenants homeless. The lawsuit is seeking relief for the class
action lawsuit members on two claims: unlawful eviction and
warranty of habitability.
According to the lawsuit, the current property management acquired
the building in December 2019, and shortly thereafter, tenants
began to complain about the conditions.
FOX31 is working to contact the apartment ownership and management
company to see if it has any response to this lawsuit. This story
will be updated if or when that happens.
The residents were forced out in what they described as a chaotic
process after the city of Aurora closed the apartment complex to
put it through an abatement process. Some families of the 98-unit
building told FOX31 they had nowhere to go.
The FOX31 Problem Solvers reported on the "atrocious" conditions at
the complex in December 2021 -- a toilet reportedly fell through
the ceiling of one unit, and residents said mice, roaches, feces
and trash in common areas and inside their homes were not
uncommon.
According to the lawsuit, residents filed a "litany of complaints"
with the city of Aurora's code enforcement division, pointing out
(among other conditions) lack of heat, lack of hot water, black
mold, vermin, bed bugs, cockroaches, unsanitary conditions and
leaks and flooding inside apartment units.
One resident included a photo of used mousetraps inside a trash bag
with at least a dozen mice on the traps.
CBZ Management, which operates the property, told FOX31 that they
couldn't do maintenance or conduct repairs because the complex was
being overrun by a Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua.
However, the mayor of Aurora said that is misleading. Mayor Mike
Coffman said the problem preceded the migrant crisis in Denver and
surrounding areas and placed blame instead on "out-of-state owners
that are slumlords."
In some of the complaints included in the lawsuit from around Aug.
9, 2021, residents said the second floor was sinking, but
management "just stuck a pole up there to hold it together."
Another complaint for Feb. 28, 2022, that was filed with the city
of Aurora stated that live electrical wires were hanging in the
north elevator "for months" and the second-floor balcony railing
had broken. Further complaints said there were broken windows in
the lobby and a broken fire extinguisher cubby.
City code enforcement inspected the apartment complex in July 2023,
according to the lawsuit, and found hundreds of violations in the
building. The city conducted re-inspections in August, September,
October and November, but many of the issues found initially were
not addressed.
The lawsuit states that the city issued a summons to building
management on Nov. 13, 2023, stating that the building violated
city code requirements, such as keeping the building structurally
sound, sanitized, safe and weathertight.
Additional violations were allegedly reported in a summons issued
on April 2, including a violation of city code that requires owners
to provide adequate heating to residents. The lawsuit also stated
that the tenants believe management stopped paying the water bill
in July.
Because of these grievances, tenants are seeking compensation for
their living expenses, including back rent if appropriate, and
damages of either three times the monthly rent, or $5,000 plus
associated court costs. [GN]
CCFI COMPANIES: Clark Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jeannie Clark; Amanda Congleton; and Tom Ellis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY; and
HOMESERVE USA REPAIR MANAGEMENT CORP., Case No. CC-20-2024-C-774
was removed from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West
Virginia, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia on Aug. 15, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-00424.
The Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that, pursuant to an
agreement approved by the West Virginia Public Service Commission,
Defendants improperly provided customer information to HomeServe,
which Plaintiffs claim HomeServe used to market "exterior
electrical line coverage" plans to thousands of residential
electrical customers located in West Virginia. The Plaintiffs
allege claims for negligence; civil conspiracy; tortious
interference; breach of contract; unjust enrichment; and violation
of the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practice Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ron L. Harvey, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
Chase Tower — 17th Floor
707 Virginia Street, East (25301)
P. O. Box 1588
Charleston, WV 25326-1588
Phone: (304) 353-8000
Facsimile: (304) 933-8704
Email: Ronda.Harvgy@steptoe-johnson.com
- and -
James A. King, Esq.
PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ALLHUR LLP
41 S High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 227-2051
Facsimile: (614) 227-2100
Email: jking@porterwright.com
- and -
John M. McIntyre, Esq.
PONER WRIGHT MORRIS & ALLHUR LLP
Six PPG Place, Third Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: 412) 2.35-4500
Facsimile: (412) 235-4510
Email: JMcIntyte@porterwright.com
- and -
Carte P. Goodwin, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLP
500 Virginia Street, East
Unit 1100
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (304) 345-0111
Email: cgoodwin@tbtlaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Ward, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLP
500 Virginia Street, East
Unit 1100
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (304) 345-0111
Email: jward@fbtlaw.com
CCFI COMPANIES: Yancey Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jovon Yancey, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated employees v. CCFI COMPANIES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company dba CALIFORNIA CHECK CASHING
STORES, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24CV010467 was
removed from the Superior Court of the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 14,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02187-JDP.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges eleven causes of action against
Defendant: Violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 1194, 1197, and
1197.1 (Minimum Wages); Violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 510
and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime); Violation of Cal. Labor Code Section
226.7 and 512(a) (Meal Break Violations); Violation of Cal. Labor
Code Section 226.7 (Rest Break Violation); Violation of Cal. Labor
Code Section 204 and 210 (Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment);
Violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 226(a) (Wage Statement
Violation; Violation of Cal. Labor Code Violation of Cal. Labor
Code Section 201, 202 and 203 (Untimely Final Wages); Violation of
Cal. Labor Code Section 2800 and 2802 (Failure to Reimburse
Necessary Business Expenses); Violation of Cal. Business &
Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.; Violation of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) (Fair Credit Reporting Act); and Violation
of California Civil Code Section 1786, et seq (Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act).[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
Paul Smith, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-840-3150
Facsimile: 916-840-3159
Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
paul.smith@ogletree.com
CHEMOURS CO: Nix Bid to Designate Individuals to Testify Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brent Nix, et al., v. The
Chemours Company FC, LLC, et al., Case No. 7:17-cv-00189-D
(E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert Numbers, II entered an order
denying the Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs ask the court to compel the Defendants to designate
various individuals to testify on topics contained in their Amended
Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice.
This motion, however, is premature. Once a party has served a Rule
30(b)(6) deposition notice, the burden is on the party receiving
the notice to either have its designee appear and testify at the
deposition or to move for a protective order. Since it does not
appear that Plaintiffs went forward with the noticed deposition,
there is nothing for the court to compel. Thus the motion is
denied, the Court said.
This case is one of several pending in this district dealing with
allegations that for many years the Defendants discharged toxic
chemicals into the Cape Fear River. Discovery proceeded in two
phases. First, the parties conducted discovery on
class-certification-related issues. And after the court resolved
the question of class certification, the parties were to engage in
merits-related discovery
Merits discovery began in January 2024. In February 2024, the
Plaintiffs served a Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice on Defendants
that set a deposition date of March 1, 2024, and contained 67
topics. And a month after that, in March 2024, they served an
Amended Rule 30(b)(6)
Deposition Notice that changed the deposition date to March 12,
2024, and added a topic.
Although the Amended Notice set the deposition for March 12, 2024,
there is no evidence that Plaintiffs appeared for a deposition that
day. Instead, the record reflects that the parties continued to
negotiate the terms of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition for several
more weeks. Since the deposition never occurred, the Defendants
never failed to produce someone to testify on the remaining topics.
And, as a result, there is nothing for the court to compel
Defendants to do. The motion to compel is denied.
Chemours Company manufactures and produces agricultural chemicals.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0vWbNN at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHEMOURS CO: Water Contamination Class Suit Pending in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the drinking water
contamination class suit is pending in the federal court of
Georgia.
In Georgia, a putative class action was filed in 2019 on behalf of
customers of the Rome, Georgia water division and the Floyd County,
Georgia water department against the City of Dalton, Georgia,
numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia, Chemours
and EID, alleging negligence, nuisance and other claims related to
the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into a
river leading to their water sources.
In November 2022, EID and Chemours were added as defendants in a
purported class action filed on behalf of residents of Summerville,
Georgia and Chattooga County, Georgia in Federal Court.
Plaintiffs seek various statutory violations as well as negligence
and nuisance and seek remedies, injunctive relief, personal injury
and property damages, as well as punitive damages.
These matters are pending in court.
Floyd County, City of Rome and Summerville filed to opt out of the
Public Water System Class Action Settlement.
The Chemours Company is a global provider of performance chemicals
that are key inputs in end-products and processes in a variety of
industries with customized solutions with a wide range of
industrial and specialty chemical products for markets, including
coatings, plastics, refrigeration and air conditioning,
transportation, semiconductor and consumer electronics, general
industrial, and oil and gas.
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Delvalle Sues Over False Representation
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Delvalle and Kymberlea Durant, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Case No.
1:24-cv-06163 (S.D.N.Y, Aug. 14, 2024), is brought on behalf of
purchasers of Defendant's Minute Maid Fruit Punch beverages (the
"Products") that claim to have "No Preservatives Added," a
representation which is false and/or misleading because the
Products contain citric acid--a chemical preservative commonly used
in food products.
The Defendant's "No Preservatives added" representation is featured
on the Products' labeling in order to induce health-conscious
consumers to purchase foods that are free from chemical
preservatives. Defendant markets its Products in a systematically
misleading manner by misrepresenting that the Products do not
contain preservatives.
The Defendant has profited unjustly as a result of its deceptive
conduct. Plaintiffs therefore assert claims on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated purchasers for violation of New York General
Business Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust Enrichment,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have purchased the Products on numerous occasions.
The Defendant formulates, advertises, manufactures, and/or sells
the Products throughout New York and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: aleslie@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: (313) 303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Erin Ruben, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Email: eruben@milberg.com
- and -
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (630) 796-0903
Email: hbryson@milberg.com
COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Underwood Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Coinbase Global, 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Underwood class suit in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In October 2021, a purported class action captioned Underwood et
al. v. Coinbase Global, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court")
against the Company alleging claims under Sections 5, 15(a)(1) and
29(b) of the Exchange Act, and violations of certain California and
Florida state statutes.
On March 11, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
Coinbase, Inc. and Brian Armstrong as defendants and adding causes
of action, including alleging claims under Sections 5, 12(a)(1) and
15 of the Securities Act and violations of certain New Jersey state
statutes.
Among other relief requested, the plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
On February 1, 2023, the District Court dismissed all federal
claims (with prejudice) and state law claims (without prejudice)
against Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc. and Brian Armstrong.
Subsequently, on February 9, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed that
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the
"Court of Appeals"), and the parties completed briefing the appeal
on September 13, 2023.
Oral argument took place on February 1, 2024 and on April 5, 2024,
the Court of Appeals issued a Summary Order affirming the District
Court's dismissal order with respect to the claims alleging
violations of the Exchange Act, and reversing the District Court's
dismissal order with respect to the claims alleging violations of
the Securities Act and violations of the state statutes.
On June 27, 2024, defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint, and on July 29, 2024, the defendants filed a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings requesting the District Court dismiss the
remaining claims.
The defendants continue to dispute the claims in this case and
intend to vigorously defend against them. Based on the nature of
the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this matter remains
uncertain and the Company cannot estimate the potential impact, if
any, on its business or financial statements at this time.
Coinbase Global, a Delaware corporation, is one of the world's
largest crypto asset exchanges.[BN]
COLORADO: Fails to Provide Inmates' Mandated Treatment, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARL GAMBRELL, MICHAEL HANSON, ALEXANDER HINKLE, RYAN JONES, JAWAD
KHOUIR, SARMAD MOHAMMED, ZACHARY MONDRAGON, DOMINIC PELLICANE, and
FRITZ SCHNEIDER, as Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOSES STANCIL, in
his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado
Department of Corrections; AMANDA RETTING, in her official capacity
as Sex Offender Treatment and Monitoring Program Administrator and
Department of Corrections Representative on the Sex Offender
Management Board; and KIMBERLY KLINE, in her official capacity as
Chief of Behavioral Health at the Department of Corrections and
Chair of the Sex Offender Management Board, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-01853 (D. Colo., July 2, 2024) arises from Department of
Corrections' continued failure and refusal to provide statutorily
mandated treatment to inmates serving indeterminate sentences under
Colorado's Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act of 1998 (SOLSA).
The Plaintiffs are inmates in the custody of DOC serving
indeterminate sentences at Fremont Correctional Facility, Buena
Vista Correctional Complex, and other locations. The Plaintiffs
were convicted of offenses arising under SOLSA and are thus
entitled to receive, and must progress in, the statutorily mandated
treatment to be eligible for parole. However, by steadfastly
refusing to provide treatment to individuals with indeterminate
sentences, the Defendants are breaking the law and breaching their
promises to Plaintiffs and other members of the Proposed Class,
says the suit.
DOC operates 21 prisons in Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq.
Adam Mueller, Esq.
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
950 17th Street, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 831-7364
Facsimile: (303) 832-2628
E-mail: jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
amueller@hmflaw.com
- and -
Kelly L. Page, Esq.
David M. Beller, Esq.
RECHT KORNFELD, P.C.
1600 Stout Street, Suite 1400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 573-1900
Facsimile: (303) 446-9400
E-mail: kelly@rklawpc.com
david@rklawpc.com
COLUMBUS LIFE: Class Cert Bid Filing in William Due Nov. 14, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM H. YOUNG, v.
COLUMBUS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00553-JPH (S.D.
Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Jeffery Hopkins entered the scheduling order as
follows:
1. Required disclosures under Aug. 30, 2024
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1):
2. Deadline for motions directed Sept. 9, 2024
to pleadings:
3. Deadline for motions to amend Oct. 28, 2024
pleadings and/or add parties:
4. Disclosure of lay witnesses: May 16, 2025
5. Plaintiff’s expert report(s) and June 27, 2025
designation(s):
6. Defendant’s expert report(s) Aug. 8, 2025
and designation(s):
7. Rebuttal expert report(s) and Sept. 19, 2025
designation(s):
8. Deadline for discovery: Oct. 31, 2025
9. Motion for Class Certification: Nov. 14, 2025
Columbus Life is a member of the Western & Southern Financial
Group, Inc.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lgRzKD at no extra
charge.[CC]
COSTA DEL: Parties in Reed Suit Must File Case Management Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD E. REED, IV, v.
COSTA DEL MAR, INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-01751-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Leslie Hoffman Price entered an order that on or
before Aug. 20, 2024, the parties shall file a Case Management
Report regarding proposed deadlines for this case, to include any
deadlines related to class certification, as appropriate.
Costa Del Mar offers high-quality polarized sunglasses for special
activities as fishing, boating or for an everyday outdoor
lifestyle.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cOTgSw at no extra
charge.[CC]
CRACKER BARREL: Griffin Seeks Proper Wages for Servers
------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN GRIFFIN, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02258-ADC (D. Md., August 2,
2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law.
The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's restaurant as a server but
was paid less than the minimum wage. Allegedly, Defendant attempted
to utilize the tip credit to meet its minimum wage obligation to
its tipped workers, including the Plaintiff and Class Members.
However, Defendant maintained a policy and practice whereby he and
other tipped employees, were required to spend a substantial amount
of time performing non-tip producing side work, says the
Plaintiff.
Cracker Barrell Old Country Store, Inc. operates a nationwide chain
of restaurants under the trade name "Cracker Barrel." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
CRASH CHAMPIONS: Hein Wage Transparency Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DOUGLAS HEIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRASH CHAMPIONS, LLC; a
Foreign Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 24-00002-05012-31, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of
Snohomish to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington on August 2, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-01176 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's failure to disclose the wage scale
or salary range for a certain position on its job posting.
Crash Champions, LLC provides vehicle diagnosis, repair, and paint
services. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Breanne Martell, Esq.
Daniel Rhim, 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
drhim@littler.com
CSC SERVICEWORKS INC: Conaway Files Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CSC Serviceworks,
Inc. The case is styled as Frederick Conaway, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CSC Serviceworks, Inc.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-05719 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
CSC ServiceWorks -- https://www.cscsw.com/ -- is the leading
provider of commercial laundry services and air vending solutions
throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Fax: (212) 868-1229
Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com
CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Customers Bancorp, Inc. (NYSE: CUBI) resulting from
allegations that Customers Bancorp may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Customers Bancorp securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28067 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On August 8, 2024, during market hours, the
Federal Reserve Board of Governors issued an announcement entitled
"Federal Reserve Board issues enforcement action with Customers
Bancorp, Inc. and Customers Bank." Attached to the announcement was
a written agreement between the Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia, Customers Bancorp, Inc., and Customers Bank. The
agreement stated that "the most recent examinations and inspection
of [Customers Bancorp and Customers Bank] conducted by the Federal
Reserve Bank of Philadelphia [. . .] identified significant
deficiencies related to the Bank's risk management practices and
compliance with the applicable laws, rules, and regulations
relating to anti-money laundering ("AML"), including the Bank
Secrecy Act [. . .], including the rules and regulations issued
thereunder by the U.S. Department of the Treasury [. . .], and the
AML requirements of Regulation H of the Board of Governors [of the
Federal Reserve System] [. . .]; and the regulations issued by the
Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of
the Treasury[.]"
On this news, the price of Customers Bancorp common stock fell by
13.3% to close at $47.01 on August 8, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
DAIRYLAND USA: Scheduling Order Entered Orbetta Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mauricio Orbetta, Delroy
Harriot, and Gosnell Butler, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Dairyland USA Corporation, The Chef's
Warehouse, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09000-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge John Crona entered the scheduling order as follows:
1. All parties do not consent to conducting all further
proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge,
including
motions and trial.
2. Settlement discussions have not taken place.
3. The Parties have conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 26.
4. Unless a party amends a pleading as a matter of course
pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), amended
pleadings
may not be filed and additional parties may not be joined
except
with leave of the Court. Any motion for leave to amend or to
join additional parties shall be filed by N/A.
5. Initial Disclosures have already been exchanged and shall be
updated as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than 90 days
after the close of the opt-in period for the putative
collective.
Dairyland USA Corporation wholesales and distributes dairy
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7VMLR7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
DANZAS CORPORATION: Williams Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tashara Williams, as an individual and on the behalf of similarly
situated persons v. DANZAS CORPORATION d/b/a DHL GLOBAL FORWARDING,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01286-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Aug. 16, 2024), is
brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for the Defendants' failure
to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees worked in excess of 40
hours per week but Defendant did not pay them overtime wages at a
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. The
Plaintiff routinely worked over 40 hours or more in a work week but
Defendants just paid 80 hours on each paycheck regardless of
Plaintiff working more than 80 hours in the bi-weekly pay period,
regularly working 90 to 100 hours in a pay period.
Not only did Defendants fail to pay Plaintiff time and one-half
Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours within a work week during one or more weeks of employment,
but Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff her raise for the first of
the year with Defendant. As a result of these practices, Plaintiff
is owed lost wages and liquidated damages as a result of not being
paid overtime, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a straight lane analyst
(a non-exempt employee) beginning on June 6, 2022, until
Plaintiff's constructive discharge on July 10, 2024.
Danzas Corporation d/b/a DHL Global Forwarding was a corporation
doing business located in Peoria, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad W. Eisenback, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (331)307-7632
Fax: (630) 575 - 8188
Email: ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com
DISTRIBUTION SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Cyber Incident Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution Solutions Group 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 1, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Cyber Incident class
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.
On April 4, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit (the "Cyber
Incident Suit") was filed against DSG entitled Lardone Davis, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Lawson
Products, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02118, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
The plaintiff in this case, who purports to represent the class of
individuals harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by DSG in
connection with the Cyber Incident, asserts a variety of common law
and statutory claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief
and other related relief related to the potential unauthorized
access by third parties to personal identifiable information and
protected health information.
DSG disagrees with and intends to vigorously defend against the
Cyber Incident Suit.
Distribution Solutions Group, Inc. operates as a specialty
distribution company. The Company provides high touch and
value-added distribution solutions to the maintenance, repair and
operations (MRO), original equipment manufacturer (OEM), and the
industrial technologies markets. [BN]
DMM SOLUTIONS: Grimmett Sues Over Racketeering Activity
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE GRIMMETT, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DMM SOLUTIONS, INC., and DOES
1-100, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-05903 (S.D.N.Y., August 2, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
the New York General Business Law, the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, and for unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated against Defendants in connection with
DMM Solutions' scheme to use websites disguised as providing
legitimate dating services to mercilessly extract money from users
hoping for romance.
Headquartered in New York, NY, DMM Solutions is an online website
provision and global network user acquisition hub that provides
services for dating sites. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
James C. Shah, Esq.
Anna K. D’Agostino, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: lrubinow@millershah.com
jcshah@millershah.com
akdagostino@millershah.com
- and -
James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-7700
(314) 678-1064
Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com
- and -
Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
Zachary P. Beatty, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
361 W. Lancaster Ave.
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com
ZPB@chimicles.com
akdagostino@millershah.com
lrubinow@millershah.com
DREAM GAMES: Royal Match Mobile Game "Addictive," Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a woman has filed a
federal lawsuit against Turkish game developer Dream Games
Teknoloji Anonim Sirket.
Why: The plaintiff alleges the company's popular mobile game, Royal
Match, violates state gambling laws.
Where: The Royal Match gambling class action was filed in a
Washington federal court.
A Washington state woman has filed a federal lawsuit against
Turkish game developer Dream Games Teknoloji Anonim Sirket,
alleging that its popular mobile game, Royal Match, violates state
gambling laws.
Plaintiff Janna Schudde filed the class action lawsuit against
Dream Games Teknoloji Anonim Sirketi Aug. 8 in a Washington federal
court, alleging multiple violations of state law.
Schudde's lawsuit claims the mobile game Royal Match is addictive,
and manipulates players into purchasing virtual gold coins to
continue playing.
Game encourages 'excessive' spending, lawsuit claims
Schudde alleges Royal Match is designed to maximize addiction by
manipulating the probability of success, enticing players to spend
more money.
She claims Dream Games exploits psychological triggers similar to
those used by casino operators to encourage excessive spending in
the game.
According to the lawsuit, Schudde lost over $900 earlier this year
on the game, which she alleges constitutes illegal gambling under
Washington state law.
In Washington, gambling is defined as "staking or risking something
of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future
contingent event not under the person's control or influence upon
an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will
receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome."
Schudde's lawsuit argues that Royal Match meets this definition, as
players wager virtual gold coins, which can be purchased with real
money, to gain additional moves and lives in the game.
The lawsuit draws parallels to a 2018 ruling by the Ninth Circuit
in the case of Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc., which found that
another mobile game, Big Fish Casino, constituted illegal gambling
under Washington law. The court determined that the virtual chips
in Big Fish Casino were "things of value" because they extended the
right to play the game. Schudde's lawsuit also argues that the gold
coins in Royal Match are "things of value."
Not free to play, class action says
While Royal Match is marketed as a free-to-play game, the lawsuit
claims this is misleading.
Although downloading the game is free, players are encouraged to
spend money on in-app items, with prices that can escalate to
hundreds or even thousands of dollars. The lawsuit notes that these
high-spending players, known as "whales" in the industry, generate
the majority of the game's profits.
According to the lawsuit, Dream Games has earned over $3 billion
from player spending as of May 2024, with most of that revenue
coming from Royal Match.
As a result, Schudde is looking to represent anyone in the United
States who played Royal Match and lost purchased lives and coins.
She is suing Dream Games for fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment,
and for violating the state's consumer protection act. Schudde
seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a
jury trial.
Last month, MobilityWare agreed to a $100,000 non-monetary
settlement to end claims brought by users of the company's various
mobile apps, who alleged MobilityWare collected user information
without consent and sold it to third parties for targeted
advertising purposes.
The plaintiff is represented by Omer Salik of Carter Arnett Bennett
Perez PLLC.
The Royal Match gambling class action lawsuit is Schudde v. Dream
Games Teknoloji Anonim Sirket, Case No. 2:23-cv-01215, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington. [GN]
DUN & BRADSTREET: Continues to Defend Batis Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Holdings 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 1, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Batis class suit in the
Northern District of California.
Batis v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-01924-AGT
(N.D.Cal.)
On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff Odette R. Batis filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Company, alleging that the Company used the
purported class members’ names and personas to promote paid
subscriptions to the Company’s Hoovers product website without
consent, in violation of the California right of publicity statute,
California common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or
likeness and California’s Unfair Competition Law.
On June 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
On February 10, 2023, the District Court denied the motion to
dismiss.
The decision was subject to an automatic right of appeal, and the
Company has appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit.
On January 18, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's determination that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply.
On February 1, 2024, D&B filed a petition for rehearing or
rehearing en banc seeking to vacate the Ninth Circuit ruling.
Subsequently, on February 15, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued an
order stating that the petition will be held in abeyance pending
the resolution of en banc rehearing of another similar case pending
before the Ninth Circuit, Martinez v. ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc.
(“Martinez”).
On March 1, 2024, the Ninth Circuit vacated the en banc rehearing
in the Martinez case and continued to hold D&B’s Petition for
Rehearing in abeyance.
On July 8, 2024, the Ninth Circuit granted D&B’s Petition for
Rehearing, withdrew its January 18, 2024 disposition and issued a
new opinion and order affirming the district court’s
determination that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply.
On July 30, 2024, mandate issued in the Ninth Circuit and the case
will return to the District Court.
In accordance with ASC 450 Contingencies, the Company is continuing
to defend the claims and evaluate any potential exposure; however,
at this time we have no basis to determine that a loss in
connection with this matter is both probable and reasonably
estimable, and thus no reserve has been established.
Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. is into consumer credit reporting,
collection agencies and is based in Jacksonville, Florida.
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery in Debose Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Holdings 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 1, 2024, that
discovery is ongoing for the Debose class suit in the District of
New Jersey.
DeBose v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00209-ES-CLW
(D.N.J.)
On January 17, 2022, Plaintiff Rashad DeBose filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Company, alleging that the Company used the
purported class members' names and personas to promote paid
subscriptions to the Company's Hoovers product website without
consent, in violation of the Ohio right of publicity statute and
Ohio common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or likeness.
On March 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint.
The motion was briefed, and in November 2022 the Court requested
supplemental briefing. Supplemental briefing was completed in
January 2023.
The Court has set oral argument on the motion to dismiss on
September 12, 2024.
Discovery is ongoing.
Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. is into consumer credit reporting,
collection agencies and is based in Jacksonville, Florida.
EDUCATORS BENEFIT: Gepson Files Suit in D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Educators Benefit
Consultants, LLC. The case is styled as Peter Gepson, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Educators Benefit
Consultants, LLC doing business as: Aviben, Case No.
0:24-cv-03301-JMB-JFD (D. Minn., Aug. 16, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Educators Benefit Consultants, LLC doing business as Aviben --
https://aviben.com/ -- is a third party administrator and
consulting firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Pamela Richardson, Esq.
Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq.
MCSWEENEY/ LANGEVIN LLC
2116 2nd Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Phone: (877) 542-4646
Email: Rachel@westrikeback.com
ram@westrikeback.com
EGGLAND'S BEST: Cavallaro-Kearins Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Patricia Cavallaro-Kearins, Mary Cea, Joshua
Davidson, Amanda Fields, Tina Fulford, Antonett Garrett, Valerie
Resor, Philip Smith, Michelle Spurgeon, Denise Wilson, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v.
Eggland's Best, Inc., Eggland's Best, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03303
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 14, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-07207 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Eggland's Best -- https://www.egglandsbest.com/ -- is the world's
leading healthy egg brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
John J. Frawley, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: 312-419-1025
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
jfrawley@flsalaw.com
- and -
Pete Winebrake, Esq.
Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
mtolodziecki@winebrakelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joan Taylor, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (412) 855-3213
Email: joantaylor@cozen.com
EGGLAND'S BEST: Delaney Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Delaney, Tracy Massenburg, and Amber Motley, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v.
EGGLAND'S BEST, INC. and EGGLAND'S BEST, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-07256 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 7, 2024), is brought arises out of
false and misleading statements that Defendants make about the
Eggland's Best Cage Free ("Cage Free") eggs that they sell.
The Defendants claim that their Cage Free eggs come from hens that
are "free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment." They include
that statement on the packaging for all the Cage Free eggs that
they distribute nationwide. But that statement is false. The truth
is that many hens producing Cage Free eggs live in typical factory
farming conditions. They are confined indoors 24 hours per day, 365
days per year. They live in windowless structures made of concrete,
metal, and dirt. The structures contain hundreds of thousands of
hens packed so closely together that each bird has around one
square foot of floor space (or less) to itself, and many hens
living in these structures never see the sun or breathe fresh air.
These hens are not "free to roam" anywhere, and their living
conditions are neither "natural" nor "pleasant." Quite the
opposite. Living in cramped, artificial conditions is highly
stressful for hens, and it increases their risk of disease, injury,
and death.
The Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the living conditions
of Cage Free hens are intentional and misleading. Merchants often
label eggs as "free range" or "pasture raised" when they come from
hens with outdoor access and ample space. By labeling Cage Free
eggs as "free to roam" and "natural," Defendants attract consumers
who are specifically seeking eggs from hens living in "free range"
or "pasture raised" environments, even though hens producing Cage
Free eggs do not live in such environments. As a result, Defendants
are able to sell Cage Free eggs at an unearned premium.
The law does not permit this. Accordingly, Defendants must
reimburse consumers, like Plaintiffs and members of the
below-defined classes, who purchased Cage Free eggs at a premium
due to Defendants' false statements about hens' living conditions,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs shops for animal products, they specifically seeks
out those that come from animals that are treated humanely.
Eggland's Best, LLC directly produces, markets, licenses,
distributes, and sells the Cage Free eggs at issue.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
John J. Frawley, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: 312-419-1025
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
jfrawley@flsalaw.com
- and -
Pete Winebrake, Esq.
Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
mtolodziecki@winebrakelaw.com
EIDP INC: Continues to Defend Baker Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
EIDP 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Baker class suit.
New York. EIDP is a defendant in a putative class action (the
"Baker Class Action"), brought by persons who live in and around
Hoosick Falls, New York asserting claims for medical monitoring and
property damage based on alleged PFOA releases from manufacturing
facilities owned and operated by co-defendants in Hoosick Falls.
The lawsuits allege that EIDP and others supplied materials used at
these facilities resulting in PFOA air and water contamination.
A court approved settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and
the other co-defendants regarding the Baker Class Action case.
In September 2022, the class certification of the Baker Class
Action was granted, with the court certifying three separate
classes consisting of a private well property damage class, a
medical monitoring class and a nuisance class.
EIDP will challenge the certification and continue to defend itself
on the merits of the case, while seeking an out of court
resolution.
Additionally, an accrual was established as of June 30, 2024 for
the settlement of personal injury lawsuits with respect to persons
living in or around Hoosick Falls.
EIDP, Inc., formerly known as DuPont de Nemours, Inc., commonly
shortened to DuPont, is a multinational chemical company.
EL CENTRO: Gonzalez Data Breach Suit Removed to W.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ARTURO GONZALEZ, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EL CENTRO DEL BARRIO D/B/A
CENTROMED, Defendant, Case No. 2024CI11266, was removed from the
District Court of Bexar County, Texas, 225th Judicial District, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on August
2, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case
No. 5:24-cv-00852 to the proceeding.
The case arises out of a recent data breach of Defendant's
electronic health record system which stores certain personally
identifiable information and/or protected health information of its
patients.
Centro Del Barrio is a Texas-based nonprofit organization that
receives federal funding to operate a community-based health center
project and provides primary and related health care services to
residents of Bexar and Comal counties in Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Natalie Friend Wilson, Esq.
LANGLEY & BANACK INCORPORATED
745 E Mulberry Ave, Ste 700
San Antonio, TX 78212
Telephone: (210) 736-6600
E-mail: nwilson@langleybanack.com
- and -
Matthew S. Freedus, Esq.
FELDESMAN TUCKER LEIFER FIDELL LLP
1129 20th Street, N.W., 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 466-8960
E-mail: mfreedus@ftlf.com
EMBANET-COMPASS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS MARQUEZ, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
EMBANET-COMPASS KNOWLEDGE GROUP INC. d/b/a BOUNDLESS LEARNING, Case
No. 6:23-cv-02467-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order extending the deadline by which the Defendant
shall file a response to Named Plaintiff's motion to certify class
up through and including Sept. 13, 2024.
While diligently attempting to prepare an appropriate response to
the motion to certify class, the undersigned attorneys require
additional time as both counsels will be unavailable due to
unavoidable and unmovable case and family travel obligations.
The Defendant submits that the request is for good cause, is not
for the purpose of undue delay, and will not prejudice any party to
the action.
On Aug. 1, 2024, the Named Plaintiff timely filed a Motion to
Certify Class. The Defendant's deadline to respond to the Motion is
Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2024.
Embanet-Compass provides online learning services for schools,
colleges, and universities.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F4B0fS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason D. Byrd, Esq.
Shawn Matthew Clark, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
900 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9600
Facsimile: (212) 832-2719
E-mail: jabyrd@littler.com
smclark@littler.com
EOS ENERGY: Proposed Class Action Settlement Set October 17
-----------------------------------------------------------
Longview News-Journal reports that Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
announces notice of pendency and proposed class action for all
record holders of EOS Energy Enterprises, Inc.
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RICHARD DELMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
BRYANT R. RILEY, DANIEL SHRIBMAN, KENNETH YOUNG, PATRICK J.
BARTELS, JR., JAMES L. KEMPNER, TIMOTHY M. PRESUTTI, ROBERT SUSS,
and B. RILEY PRINCIPAL SPONSOR CO. II, LLC, Defendants,
C.A. No. 2023-0293-LWW
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER
CLASS ACTION,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO: All record and beneficial holders of Eos Energy Enterprises,
Inc. (f/k/a Riley Principal Merger Corp. II ("BRII")) (the
"Company") common stock who held such shares between 10:00 a.m. ET
on November 10, 2020 and November 16, 2020 (the "Class Period"),
but excluding the Excluded Persons (as defined in the Stipulation
and the Notice) (the "Class").
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) plaintiff Richard Delman
("Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of the Class (as defined
herein); (ii) defendants Bryant R. Riley, Daniel Shribman, Kenneth
Young, Patrick J. Bartels, Jr., James L. Kempner, Timothy M.
Presutti, Robert Suss (collectively, the "Individual Defendants")
and B. Riley Principal Sponsor Co. II (together with the Individual
Defendants, the "Defendants"); and (iii) non-party Eos Energy
Enterprises, Inc. f/k/a B. Riley Principal Merger Corp. II ("New
Eos," or the "Company," and together with Plaintiff and Defendants,
the "Parties") have reached a proposed settlement for $8,500,000 in
cash (the "Settlement Amount") as set forth in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release (the "Settlement")
a copy of which is available at www.BRIIStockholderSettlement.com.
The Settlement, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on October 17,
2024 at 11:00 a.m., before The Honorable Lori W. Will, Vice
Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King
Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801, or remotely by telephone or
videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other
things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class for
settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules
23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff and
Plaintiff's Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and
whether Plaintiff should be finally appointed as Class
representatives for the Class and Plaintiff's Counsel should be
finally appointed as Class counsel for the Class; (iii) determine
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class and in the best interests of
the Class; (iv) determine whether the Action should be dismissed
with prejudice and the Releases provided under the Stipulation
should be granted; (v) determine whether the Order and Final
Judgment approving the Settlement should be entered; (vi) determine
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund
is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vii)
determine whether and in what amount any Fee and Expense Award
should be paid to Plaintiff's Counsel out of the Settlement Fund;
(viii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the
proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiff's Counsel's
application for a Fee and Expense Award; and (ix) consider any
other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in
connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the
Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of
the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at
the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.BRIIStockholderSettlement.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the
Settlement Administrator at BRII Stockholders Settlement, c/o A.B.
Data, Ltd., PO Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 877-411-4708,
info@BRIIStockholderSettlement.com,
www.BRIIStockholderSettlement.com. A copy of the Notice can also be
downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.BRIIStockholderSettlement.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed in accordance
with the terms of the proposed Plan of Allocation attached as
Exhibit E to the Settlement or such other plan of allocation as is
approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation,
each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a
distribution from the Net Settlement Fund subject to the following
conditions.
For each Eligible Share for which a Claim Form is submitted:
(a) if such Eligible Class Member sold any Eligible Shares for
less than $10.10 (the "Redemption Price"), including the number of
Eligible Shares sold, the price at which such Eligible Shares were
sold (the "Eligible Share Sale Price"), and the date those Eligible
Shares were purchased and sold, and/or
(b) if such Eligible Class Member continues to hold any
Eligible Shares, the number of Eligible Shares the Class Member
continues to hold, and the date those Eligible Shares were
purchased;
Such Eligible Class Member shall receive a pro rata distribution
(the "Claimed Distribution Amount") from the Net Settlement Fund
with such pro rata portion of the Net Settlement Fund to be
determined based on the Eligible Class members total loss ("Total
Loss") equal to the product of (i) the Redemption Price minus the
Eligible Share Sale Price and/or (ii) the Redemption Price minus
the closing price of such shares on the date the Complaint was
filed ($1.86). The Claimed Distribution Amount will be calculated
based on the Total Loss submitted by such Eligible Class Member,
divided by the combined Total Loss for all Eligible Class Members,
multiplied by the total amount in the Net Settlement Fund.
Following the distributions set forth in the foregoing paragraph,
any remaining cash in the Net Settlement Fund shall be distributed
pro rata from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i)
the balance of the Net Settlement Fund following the distributions
set forth in the foregoing paragraph and (ii) a fraction, the
numerator of which is the number of Eligible Shares held by the
Eligible Class Member, and the denominator of which is a number
representing the total number of Eligible Shares.
If any Eligible Class Member's entitlement to Net Settlement
Proceeds as calculated pursuant to the Plan of Allocation totals
less than $5.00, it will not be included in the calculations, and
no distribution will be made to that Eligible Class Member,
however, such Eligible Class Member will nevertheless be bound by
the Settlement and the Order and Final Judgment of the Court
dismissing this Action.
Any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation,
or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for the Fee and Expense Award
must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's
Counsel, Defendants' Counsel, and Company Counsel such that they
are received no later than October 2, 2024, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this
Summary Notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator or Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
BRII Stockholders Settlement
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
PO Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Telephone: (877) 411-4708
Email: info@BRIIStockholderSettlement.com
Website: www.BRIIStockholderSettlement.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Email: ktucker@gelaw.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE:
Dated: July 1, 2024 [GN]
ESOIL 1-27-45-0017: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, v. ESOIL 1-27-45-0017 CORPORATION and CK AT LEJEUNE
LLC d/b/a CHICKEN KITCHEN, Case No. 1:24-cv-23138 (S.D. Fla., Aug.
16, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 12181,
et seq., (the "Americans with Disabilities Act" or "ADA") and 28
U.S.C. sections 2201 and 2202.
The Defendants have allegedly discriminated against the individual
Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment
of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the commercial property. The Plaintiff has
encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA
at the subject commercial property and restaurant. These barriers
have posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to
the Plaintiff, the suit says.
Mr. Brito is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down)
and is therefore substantially limited in major life activities due
to his impairment. He requires the use of a wheelchair to
ambulate.
ESOIL owned a commercial property located at 400 S Dixie Highway,
Coral Gables, Florida 33146.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
EVOLVE BANK: Biron Sues Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BIRON, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02473 (W.D. Tenn., July 2, 2024) arises
from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive
information in the possession and custody and/or control of
Defendant.
The data breach occurred between February 2024 and May 2024.
However, Evolve did not become aware of suspicious activity on its
network until late May 2024, approximately an appalling ninety days
after the data breach had first begun. On June 28, 2024, Evolve
began notifying some of its consumers and clients, including
financial and banking partners, about the widespread data breach
through an online notice page. However, Evolve has not formally
begun notifying its consumers via breach notice letters or the
Attorney Generals. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts claims for
negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, and invasion of privacy.
Evolve is a Arkansas and Tennessee company that provides software
services to financial and banking providers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
EXTREME NETWORKS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Extreme Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:EXTR)
investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the
federal securities laws, follow the link below for more
information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/extreme-networks-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=96233&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Extreme Networks, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders
who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between
July 27, 2022 and January 30, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (a) Extreme was suffering
from adverse client demand trends as its clients had ordered more
product from Extreme than needed in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic to avoid supply shortages and because of a lack of
alternative sourcing options and thereby had cannibalized their
Class Period purchasing needs; (b) Extreme was increasingly
offsetting these adverse organic demand trends with the fulfillment
of backlog orders in a manner that materially exceeded the
proportion represented to investors; (c) as a result of (a)-(b),
Extreme was drawing down its backlog at a much faster rate than
represented to investors; (d) as a result of (a)-(c), Extreme's
backlog was already decreasing and at a much quicker pace than
defendants' statements to investors that backlog would only "begin
to shrink" in 4Q23 and it would be not until "fiscal '26 when it
really goes back to normal"; (e) as a result of (a)-(d), Extreme's
backlog was not on track to continue increasing to $600 million;
and (f) as a result of (a)-(e) above, defendants had materially
misrepresented Extreme's organic demand, revenue growth, and market
share gains as the fulfillment of Extreme's backlog masked a
decline in organic demand and attendant revenues.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Extreme stock during the
relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/extreme-networks-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=96233&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
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
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Seeks Amendment of Class Cert Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GWENDOLINE ABOAH and TANIA
STEWART, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a BRIGHTSTAR CARE OF
FAIRFIELD & SOUTHBURY and PETER R. MOORE, Case No.
3:20-cv-00763-SVN (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
-- altering or amending the Court's Order denying class
certification
based on the new development in this case; and
-- certifying the newly defined class consisting of:
"all Caregivers or HHAs BrightStar employed in Connecticut
during
the period of June 2, 2018, until June 2, 2020, who worked at
least one 24-hour shift (live-in shift) for BrightStar, who
BrightStar (1) failed to compensate for sleep time absent a
written agreement to do so and (2) failed to pay proper
overtime
wages because it did not account for the value of food and
lodging
when calculating the regular rate of pay used in determining
overtime compensation."
The Court should alter or amend the initial order denying class
certification to harmonizing it with the Court's ruling on summary
judgment.
The BrightStar challenged the original class definition,
interpreting the definition to include individuals who signed
agreements in writing after the filing of this case and before
final judgment. Also, Mr. Moore has been dismissed as a defendant
from this case.
Consequently, no final judgment has yet entered in this case. The
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their memorandum of law and
Reply regarding their initial Rule 23 class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ss3FPg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC
100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3007
Telephone: (860) 249-7180
Facsimile: (860) 408-1471
E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com
FATHOM REALTY: Ahmad Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fathom Realty FL LLC.
The case is styled as Bilal Ahmad, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Fathom Realty FL LLC doing
business as: Fathom Realty, Fathom Realty, LLC, Case No.
0:24-cv-61491-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Fathom -- https://www.fathomrealty.com/ -- is a full-service
brokerage offering agents tools and support with the industry's
best commission plan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 Ne 1st Ave, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
FEDEX GROUND: Court Stays Ortiz-Dixon Suit
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLER ORTIZ-DIXON, v.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC, Case No. 5:23-cv-01140-ODW-SP
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order
granting the parties' stipulated request to maintain stay of the
action and continue case management conference as follows:
1. The stay of this matter remains in effect pending the outcome
of
the Depina Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, or
until
this Court issues a further order lifting the stay; and
2. The hearing on Case Management Conference is continued from
Aug. 19, 2024, to Dec. 16, 2024, at 1:30pm.
Fedex provides package delivery services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p2GbfM at no extra
charge.[CC]
FORT WAYNE, IN: Aker Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Aker, Anthony Alaimo, Scott Alday, Brandtt Allen, Robert
Amber, Michael Anderson, Merrell Arrington, Joshua Arrivillaga,
Brandon Bainter, Aaron Baker, Jason Bales, Bryan Barhydt, Heath
Bearman, Kamron Bell, Jeffry Berning, Kevin Bertram, Amy Biggs,
Jeremy Biggs, David Botas, Marah Bradbury, Jesse Brandenberger,
Todd Brinker, Brett Brown, Michael Brown, Tyler Bruce, Leith
Campbell, Michael Carcione, Casey Cassidy, Doug Castator, Floyd
Causey, Paul Caywood, Kelly Christen, Timothy Clay, Edward Connett,
Patrick Cornett, Richard Crowder, David Cummings, William
D'alessandro, Matthew Daily, Brian Dey, Christopher Domingos,
Amanda Dreher, Christopher Duba, Ian Dutkiewicz, Joseph Eager,
Jason Ebert, Troy Egts, Sean Elsten, Craig Emenhiser, Richard
Essegian, Scott Estriage, Daniel Etzcorn, Bryan Fairchild, Barney
Farris, III, Timothy Fehrer, Derek Fillers, Zachary Fisher, Allen
Fitch, Jason Fleming, Ashton Ford, Joshua Foutz, Joel Fravel, Matt
Freygang, Dominic Garrett, Brandon Garton, Timothy George, Chad
Gerardot, Brian Giere, John Gilbert, Michael Girardot, Andreas
Gomez-Espino, Andrew Goodwin, G. Gregory Goodwin, Ryan Hack, Jason
Green, Michael Grove, Kyle Groves, Alexander Guldbeck, Joshua
Hammer, Thomas Hare, III, Michael Harley, Anansa Harris, Cameron
Harris, Cody Harting, Todd Hattery, Bryan Heckman, Thomas Helmkamp,
Ken Hendricks, Robert Hinsenkamp, Todd Hockemeyer, Joseph
Holliness, Steven Horn, Travis Hostler, James House, Joshua Howe,
Matthew Hughes, Robert Humphrey, Kelly Hurd, Edward Hviedos, II,
Austin Jett, Todd Kabisch, Lawrence Kaiser, Robert Kaiser, II,
Joshua Keck, Ben Keller, Isaac Keller, Brian Kidd, Matthew Klopsch,
Andrew Knox, Matthew Kocks, Thomas Kocks, James Kohrman, Charles
Komarck, Todd Korn, Douglas Krawczyk, Michael Krucina, Quentin
Kruse, Nathan Landis, Rebekah Lash, Brian Lawson, Craig Lenwell,
Adam Leon, Jason Linn, James Logan, Trayson Luna, William Lynch,
Jr., Samuel Lyon, Richard Machcinski, Jack Marquardt, Rebecca
Marshall, Todd Martinez, Bradley Masters, Jared Maxwell, Matthew
Mcclure, Kyle Mcconiga, Ryan Mccurdy, John Mcmahon, Tyler Meehan,
Scott Merlle, Donald Michell, Jr., Michael Miller, Gage Minniear,
Trapper Mize, Craig Mueller, Gary Munro, Robert Murphy, Jr., Scott
Myers, Steven Neal, Joseph Newville, Andrew Noll, James Noll, John
O'connor, III, Dustin O'hara, Ryan O'shaughnessey, John Otto, III,
Amber Passagua, Chad Pattee, Bryan Peterson, Charlie Phan, Kasie
Platt, Chad Poling, Jacob Postel, Ryan Preston, Caleb Raap,
Nicholas Racioppi, Andrew Ramsey, Marcus Reeder, Jacob Rehm,
Charles Reid, Scott Renninger, Emmanuel Rodriguez, Miguel Rosales,
Rodney Salway, Shawn Sarrazin, Daniel Schmitt, Kent Shaw, Benjamin
Singleton, Craig Smith, Jeremy Smith, Robert Snider, Adam Snyder,
Benjamin Sobczah, Richard Sorg, Bryan Sorgen, Caleb Spyker, Daniel
Stahl, Taylor Stevens, Bryan Steward, Amber Stine, Jacob
Stoppenhagen, Keith Suttle, Nathan Swaidner, Joseph Tarney, Charles
Taylor, Joshua Taylor, Robert Taylor, Jason Thompson, Brian
Vanderbosch, Jeffrey Vanderweele, Peter Vanderweele, Paul Veldman,
Michael Venable, John Vickrey, Donald Voliva, Lucas Vorndran, Sean
Vosmeier, Lance Wagner, Christopher Walker, Coliss Wallace, Brian
Watson, Amanda Weimer, Bryce Western, Benjamin Williams, Kelly
Williams-Schenkel, Darrin Wilson, Ian Wilson, Tyler Wilson, Kevin
Witzigreuter, Philip Wyss, Kayla Yates, Mark Young, Eric Zeiger,
Matthew Zion, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. CITY OF FORT WAYNE, INDIANA, Case No.
1:24-cv-00344 (N.D. Ind., Aug. 15, 2024), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure
to properly pay compensation owed to each Plaintiff.
In addition to Plaintiffs' compensation for both regularly
scheduled and additional hours of work, the City provides
Department employees with additional compensation including but not
limited to, longevity pay, specialty team pay, technical pay,
ancillary pay, education bonus, holiday pay, paramedic pay, SORT
(Special Operations Team) pay and advanced EMT (Emergency Medical
Technician) pay. At all times material herein, the City has failed
on numerous occasions to incorporate these additional payments when
calculating Plaintiffs' regular rate for purposes of FLSA overtime
compensation.
The City has admitted to not calculating Plaintiffs' regular rates
correctly for purposes of overtime, and despite this admission, the
City continues to incorrectly calculate Plaintiffs' unscheduled
overtime. To date, the City has been on notice of the overtime
miscalculations and has refused to remedy the issue. On information
and belief, the failure by Defendant to properly pay compensation
owed to each Plaintiff is a knowing, willful and reckless violation
of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are each employees or former employees of the
Defendant.
The Defendant in this action is the City of Fort Wayne, which has a
principal place of business within the City of Fort Wayne in Allen
County, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George Guido, Esq.
GUIDO LAW OFFICE
809 S. Calhoun Street, Suite 200
Fort Wayne, IN
Email: guido@guidofamilylaw.com
- and -
Jamie Eisner, Esq.
Arthur R. Traynor, Esq.
MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C.
1920 L Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 783-0010
Fax: (202) 783-6088
Email: jeisner@mooneygreen.com
atraynor@mooneygreen.com
FREEGO USA INC: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. FREEGO USA INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06202
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://freegobikes.com, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
FREEGO USA INC., operates the Freego online retail store, as well
as the Freego interactive Website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Danalgottlieb@aol.com
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
GAP INC: Cho Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------
The case styled as Pamela Cho, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. The Gap, Inc., Gap (Apparel) LLC, Gap
International Sales, Inc., Case No. CGC-24-616357 was removed from
the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 15,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-05206-JCS to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
The Gap, Inc. -- https://www.gapinc.com/en-us/ -- commonly known as
Gap Inc. or Gap, is an American worldwide clothing and accessories
retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Benjamin Drimmer, Esq.
Scott Gregory Braden, Esq.
Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1234 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (619) 762-1900
Fax: (858) 313-1850
Email: jim@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
todd@lcllp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Hillary Anne Hamilton, Esq.
Jason David Russell, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 687-5576
Fax: (213) 621-5576
Email: hillary.hamilton@skadden.com
jason.russell@skadden.com
GEISINGER HEALTH: Alicea Sues Over Unlawful Data Security
---------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Alicea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GEISINGER HEALTH and NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case
No. 4:24-cv-01243-MWB (M.D. Pa., July 25, 2024), is brought due to
the Defendants' impermissibly inadequate and unlawful data
security, which caused the personal information of Plaintiff and
those similarly situated to be accessed and exfiltrated by a former
employee of Nuance (the "Data Breach").
The Data Breach affected 1,276,026 individuals The data which
Geisinger collected from the Plaintiff and Class Members, and which
was exfiltrated by Nuance's former employee, were highly sensitive.
The exfiltrated data included personal identifying information
("PII") and personal health information ("PHI" and, together with
Personal Information, "Personal Information") such as: name, date
of birth, Social Security number, and brokerage and banking
information.
Upon information and belief, prior to and through the date of the
Data Breach, Geisinger obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Personal Information and then maintained that sensitive data in a
negligent and/or reckless manner. As evidenced by the Data Breach,
Geisinger inadequately and unlawfully maintained its network,
platform, software--rendering these easy prey for cybercriminals,
such as a former employee of Defendant Nuance. Defendant Nuance
provided inadequate training and/or supervision of its employees
and former employees, resulting in one of them committing the Data
Breach on Defendant Geisinger's network.
The risk of the Data Breach was known to the Defendants. Thus, the
Defendants were on notice that its inadequate data security created
a heightened risk of exfiltration, compromise, and theft. Then,
after the Data Breach, Defendants failed to provide timely notice
to the affected Plaintiff and Class Members, thereby exacerbating
their injuries. Ultimately, Defendants deprived Plaintiff and Class
Members of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves
and mitigate harm. Simply put, Defendants impermissibly left
Plaintiff and Class Members in the dark--thereby causing their
injuries to fester and the damage to spread.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered—and will continue
to suffer--from the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of
their Personal Information, emotional distress, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to mitigate the fallout of the Data
Breach. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these
injuries on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals whose Personal Information was exfiltrated and
compromised in the Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a current patient of Geisinger.
Geisinger operates as a healthcare organization.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 223-5402
Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
- and -
Kevin Clancy Boylan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
2005 Market Street, Suite 350
Philadelphia, PA 1910
Phone: (215) 446-9795
Email: cboylan@forthepeople.com
GEISINGER HEALTH: Reviello Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ralph Reviello, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GEISINGER HEALTH, Case No.
2024-00200 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Montour
County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 16, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 4:24-cv-01384-MWB.
The Complaint asserts eight counts against Geisinger, each of which
arises out of an alleged November 2023 data security incident (the
"Data Security Incident") involving a former employee of non-party
Nuance Communications, Inc.: Negligence (Count I); Breach of
Contract (Count II); Breach of Implied Contract (Count III); Breach
of Fiduciary Duty (Count IV); Breach of Confidences (Count V);
Unjust Enrichment (Count VI); Violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") (Count VII);
and Declaratory Relief (Count VIII).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: (215) 967-8799
Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Max E. Kaplan, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 665.2000
Email: mkaplan@cozen.com
GEN DIGITAL: Conohan Sues Over Unlawful Data Sharing
----------------------------------------------------
Robert Conohan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GEN DIGITAL, INC., an Arizona corporation; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-06894 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 14,
2024), is brought as a result of the Defendants' Violations of the
California Trap and Trace Law by not obtaining Class Members'
express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with
TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization.
The Defendant has installed on its Website software created by
TikTok in order to identify website visitors (the "TikTok
Software"). 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 Gen Digital website instantly sends communications to TikTok
when a user lands, and every time a user clicks on a page.
California Penal Code. California law defines a "trap and trace
device" as "a device or process that captures the incoming
electronic or other impulses that identify the originating number
or other dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information
reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic
communication, but not the contents of a communication."
The TikTok Software is "reasonably likely" to identify the source
of incoming electronic impulses. In fact, it is designed solely to
meet this objective. 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,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of California residing within the
Central District of California.
Gen Digital, Inc. is an Arizona corporation that owns, operates,
and/or controls www.us.norton.com, an online platform that sells
antivirus, malware, ransomware, and hacking protection
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Narain Kumar, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 927-9270
Email: robert@taulersmith.com
nkumar@taulersmith.com
GENESCO INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Genesco Inc. d/b/a Journeys, Case No.
0:24-cv-03297-DSD-DLM (D. Minn., Aug. 16, 2024) contends that the
Defendant's Website (www.journeys.com) is not fully and equally
accessible to Plaintiff and others similarly situated who are blind
or who have low vision in violation of both the general
non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and
auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website,
including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on
her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a
number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like her
full and equal access to important Website content – content the
Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to
become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual
disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section
363A.29, subd. 4 (2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant
to Minn. Stat. section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat.
section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023).
The Defendant offers shoes, clothing and accessories for sale
including, but not limited to, athletic shoes, sneakers, sandals,
jackets, hoodies, wallets, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
GIANT COMPANY: Must Oppose Holbert Class Cert Bid by August 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORBIN HOLBERT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
GIANT COMPANY LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00501-JPW (M.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Jennifer Wilson entered an order granting the Defendant's
unopposed motion to extend briefing deadlines for Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
The following deadlines shall apply to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification:
Submission Deadline
Defendant's Response in Opposition to Aug. 30, 2024
Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion
Plaintiff's Reply Brief in further support Sept. 20, 2024
of his Class Certification Motion
Giant Company is an American regional supermarket chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hrfvho at no extra
charge.[CC]
GILEAD SCIENCES: Hearing on Searcy Class Cert Bid Set for Sept. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN SEARCY, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated and ERVIN KIRK, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, v. GILEAD
SCIENCES, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-01523-MTS
(E.D. Mo.), the Court entered an order granting joint motion to
continue hearing on class certification.
The Court ordered a hearing on the motion for class certification
and the Motions to Exclude for Thursday, Sept. 5, 2024.
The parties' lead counsel are unavailable on the current hearing
date due to unavoidable scheduling conflicts.
Accordingly, if it works with the Court's existing schedule and
calendar, the parties request that the hearing be continued to
Monday, Sept. 16, 2024.
Gilead Sciences is a research-based biopharmaceutical company
focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of
innovative medicines.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FVtO72 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
Todd E. Hilton, Esq.
Kasey Youngentob, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
hilton@stuevesiegel.com
youngentob@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
J. Toji Calabro, Esq.
CALABRO | LAW OFFICE
Two Pershing Square
2300 Main Street, 9th Floor
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (888) 585-1247
E-mail: tojicalabro@calabro-law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
William M. Corrigan, Jr., Esq.
Tyler W. Schwettman, Esq.
Jennifer A. Hill, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1350
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 690-0200
E-mail: bcorrigan@shb.com
tschwettman@shb.com
jshill@shb.com
- and -
Thomas J. Magee, Esq.
Charles N. Insler, Esq.
HEPLER BROOM LLC
One Metropolitan Square
211 North Broadway, Suite 2700
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 241-6160
E-mail: tmagee@heplerbroom.com
cinsler@heplerbroom.com
- and -
Marc Shapiro, Esq.
ORRICK HERRINGTON LLP
51 W. 52nd St.
New York, NY 10019-6142
Telephone: (212) 506-3521
E-mail: mrshapiro@orrick.com
- and -
Lisa B. Markofsky, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
2255 Glades Road
Suite 421 Atrium
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 241-7400
E-mail: lmarkofsky@proskauer.com
GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER and CHARLENE
BAVENCOFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC, d/b/a Chargebacks911, GARY
CARDONE, and MONICA EATON, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-UAM (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington entered an order
certifying the nationwide class:
"All consumers in the United States who, within the applicable
statute of limitations period until the date notice is
disseminated, were billed for shipments of either three bottles
or
five bottles of Ultrafast Keto Boost, Insta Keto, or
InstantKeto."
The Plaintiffs have satisfied all of Rule 23's requirements, the
Court says.
(1) The Plaintiffs Janet Sihler and Charlene Bavencoff's Sealed
Motion for Class Certification is granted.
(2) Plaintiffs Janet Sihler and Charlene Bavencoff are appointed
as
lead plaintiffs and class representatives.
(3) Jordan Wagner of Kibbey Wagner and Kevin Kneupper, A.
Cyclone
Covey, A. Lorraine Weekes, and Anthony Sampson of Kneupper &
Covey, PC, are appointed as class counsel.
(4) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, the parties
shall
file a joint notice that (1) describes the identification of
class members and their contact information; (2) describes
the
method of disseminating class notice; and (3) proposes a
notice
to be disseminated to the class.
The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action against the
Defendants on June 28, 2023. The operative complaint is the third
amended complaint, in which the Plaintiffs assert two RICO claims:
(1) for violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c) (Count 1) -- a
substantive RICO claim; and
(2) for violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(d) (Count 2) -- a
RICO
conspiracy claim. The essence of Plaintiffs' claims is that
Defendants conspired with the architects of a Keto diet
pill
scam, including Brightree Holdings Corporation, to keep the
Keto Racket alive and profitable.
Chargebacks911 is the original chargeback management company with
solutions to prevent chargebacks before they happen and fight
chargebacks once they do.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aTfZGI at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOALS PLASTIC: District Court Decertifies FLSA Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Malaysian Reserve reports that in a significant legal
development, the Southern District of New York has granted the
decertification of a class and collective action against Goals
Plastic Surgery. The lawsuit, which centered on wage and hour
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor
Law (NYLL), was brought forward by employees seeking collective
redress. The court found that the employees' claims lacked the
required commonality and typicality, leading to the
decertification. This ruling underscores the complexities of class
action litigation and the critical need for uniformity in
plaintiffs' claims.
In 2018, four employees of New York based, Goals Plastic Surgery,
filed suit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law, by denying overtime wages. Later, in 2021, the
court, with respect to the employees' FLSA and NYLL claims and a
F.R.C.P. Rule 23(b) class, certified the case a collective action,
which led the defense to move to decertify the ruling, claiming
that discovery had revealed significant differences between members
making up the class, revealing some are actually salaried
employees, which are arguably exempt from overtime requirements,
leading to a federal district court granting the employer its
motion.
Throughout litigation of over six years, the record showed that
even though they were afforded a lengthy discovery period,
extensions and a reopening, plaintiff's counsel failed to produce
class-wide payroll records and without those records, as counsel
commented "it became impossible to present a coherent statement of
damages as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26." The
record also showed on various matters, plaintiffs counsel failed to
diligently pursue discovery and comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, therefore, failed to adequately represent the
class in the lead up to trial.
Failure of class counsel to seek evidence of damages required the
reevaluation of the counsel's adequacy to represent the class, and
because of this, as well as the failure to comply with the
obligation to produce a viable class-wide statement of damages
under USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED: 8/9/2024, Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26, Defendants' motion for decertification
of the class was GRANTED.
Goals Plastic Surgery is the nation's leading brand in aesthetics,
founded by Dr. Sergey Voskin, with locations in NYC, Miami and
Atlanta, Goals strives to provide patients with the safest and most
effective enhancement procedures synonymous with the Goals brand.
[GN]
GRUPO GITANO: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Andrews Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Grupo Gitano, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05726 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 16, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.gitano.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to analyze and use services
provided by Defendant on Gitano.com. On July 2, 2024, the Plaintiff
tried to learn more about the services and make a reservation, but
was unable to do so independently because of the many access
barriers on Defendant's website. The Plaintiff was unable to learn
more information about restaurant locations and hours of operation,
compare prices and benefits and learn more information about the
goods and services in its physical location.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Grupo
Gitano provides to their non-disabled customers through their
website, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Grupo Gitano's policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination
Grupo Gitano specializes in a variety of services including luxury
dining, event hosting, beach villas and suites accommodations, as
well as in-room massage, DJ parties, tours and excursions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
HC CONCRETE: Amended Case Management Order Modified in Avelar Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS AVELAR and MATEO
GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated
persons, v. HC CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, AND JON HARRIS,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00292 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge entered an
order granting the joint motion to modify the amended case
management order:
The parties propose that the Court suspend the remaining deadlines
contained in the Amended Case Management Order until the Court
rules on Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs filed this collective action pursuant to the FLSA on
behalf of themselves and all current and former hourly-paid
construction workers who worked for HC Concrete, and who were
classified as independent contractors at any time since April 22,
2019.
The Complaint alleged that hourly-paid workers were misclassified
as independent contractors and thereby denied overtime pay.
In addition, the Plaintiffs' Complaint included a Rule 23 putative
class action on behalf of Plaintiffs and putative class members for
fraud and misrepresentation (Count Two).
H&C Concrete specializes in foundations, pile caps, foundation
walls, slab on grade, and cast in place columns/walls.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2VtMJ3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
HERTZ GLOBAL: Faces Doller Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the Company faces the
Doller securities class suit in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.
On May 31, 2024, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Edward
M. Doller v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. et al. (No.
2:24-CV-00513).
The complaint asserts claims against Hertz Holdings, former Company
CEO, Stephen M. Scherr, and former Company Chief Financial Officer,
Alexandra Brooks, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
concerning statements regarding the financial impact of vehicle
depreciation and demand for EVs. Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf
of a putative class, consisting of all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Hertz Holdings' securities between
April 27, 2023 and April 24, 2024.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, together with interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs.
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., known as Hertz, is an American car
rental company based in Estero, Florida. The company operates its
namesake Hertz brand, along with the brands Dollar Rent A Car,
Firefly Car Rental and Thrifty Car Rental.
HESS BAKKEN: Wins Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Penman Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ronald Penman and Adelante
Oil & Gas, LLC, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated royalty owners, v. Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00097-DLH-CRH (D.N.D.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Hovland
entered an order:
-- granting the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations;
and
-- denying the motions for hearing.
Because the class definition includes class members that lack
standing, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the statutory interest
claim. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant’s motion to
strike the statutory interest class allegations.
Accordingly, even if the Plaintiffs' subclass is ascertainable, the
subclass still does not satisfy Rule 23 because of the failure to
meet the typicality and predominance requirements.
On June 10, 2022, the Plaintifs brought an action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated royalty owners. Hess
filed a motion to dismiss on Aug. 4, 2022. The motion was denied on
March 23, 2023.
On Dec. 6, 2023, the Court granted a motion to consolidate the
cases.
The Plaintiffs define Subclass III as:
"All non-excluded persons or entities owning mineral interests
in
North Dakota wells who: (1) received an Untimely Payment from
Hess
for royalties associated with oil or gas produced from a Hess
Well
at any time since June 1, 2016; and (2) whose payments did not
include the 18% interest required by statute."
Excluded from the Class are: (1) overriding royalty interests
and
working interests; (2) Hess, its affiliates, predecessors,
employees, officers, and directors; (3) agencies, departments,
or
instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State
of
North Dakota; and (4) mineral interests which are owned or
managed
by the board of university and school lands.
Hess Bakken operates numerous oil and gas wells in North Dakota.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D405tS at no extra
charge.[CC]
HILL CONSTRUCTION: Callaway Sues Over Defective Labor and Materials
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles L. Callaway and Sharon W. Callaway, Trustees of the Charles
L. Callaway and Sharon W. Callaway Living Trust Dated February 10,
2010, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
and Gordon E. Dehler and Martha Ann Welch, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; v. Hill Construction
Services of Charleston, Inc. aka Hill Construction; Waterproofing
Specialties, Inc.; First Exteriors, LLC; Rydar, Inc.; Parex, Inc.
aka Parex USA, Inc.; and John Does 1-25; Case No. 2024CP1004175
(Com. Pleas, 9th Cir., Aug. 16, 2024) is an action brought by the
Plaintiffs both individually and as a proposed class action against
the Defendants on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated persons and entities, who own a condominium unit in
Building 5 in the Reverie HPR (the "Class").
The work of General Contractor and Subcontractors and Materialmen
was allegedly deficient in a number of ways, including the
following latent defects:
A. Due to the amount and type of insulation used in the
construction of the exterior walls, the current exterior wall
assembly creates a high interior relative humidity (RH) as
well as promotes condensation on the exterior surface of the
façade.
B. The existing double-hung windows have noted leakage through
the fenestration units confirmed through forensic water
testing.
C. The lamina coat of the exterior insulation and finishing
system (EIFS) window head architectural cornice has started
to crack, blister, and delaminate from the foam molding.
D. Window perimeter sealant joints have been installed over the
stucco/EIFS finish coat which does not provide proper
adhesion of the sealant.
E. No waterproofing or coping cap is installed over the top of
the concrete parapet and knee walls on the roof level.
The defective labor and materials provided by the Defendants for
the construction of the Building have resulted in occurrences that
have caused physical injury to tangible property at the Building,
including water intrusion into the Building, the suit asserts.
General Contractor and Subcontractors and Materialmen's defective
work and/or materials violated the building code, industry
standards, prudent workmanship practices, and the contract
documents. The Defendants' conduct proximately caused the damages
sustained by the Plaintiffs, added the suit.
Plaintiffs Charles L. Callaway and Sharon W. Callaway own Unit 5301
in Building 5 in the Reverie HPR.
Hill Construction is a residential builder specializing in high-end
technical construction and meticulously crafted luxury homes.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stanley C. Rodgers, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF STANLEY C. RODGERS, LLC
55 Broad Street, Suite 200
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 958-9881
E-mail: scr@stanleyrodgers.com
HILL'S PET: Initial Disclosure in Ketonatural Suit Due Sept. 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KETONATURAL PET FOODS,
INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., a subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive
Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-02046-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel
Mitchell entered a preliminary scheduling order:
-- If the parties agree on the need for, Sept. 2, 2024
scope, and form of such a protective
order, they must confer and then
submit a jointly proposed protective
order by:
-- The parties must serve their Fed. R. Sept. 16, 2024
Civ. P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures
by:
-- Hill's motion to stay must be filed by: Aug. 23, 2024
Hill's Pet is an American pet food company that produces dog and
cat foods.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wP76vW at no extra
charge.[CC]
HOLMAN'S FAMILY: Fails to Pay Caretaker's OT Wages, Black Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARQUISE BLACK, an individual v. HOLMAN'S FAMILY ADULT RESIDENTIAL
CARE, a California Corporation; JERRHONDA SHEWAYNE HOLMAN, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive; Case No. 24STCV18103
(Cal. Super., July 23, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for failing to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals for all hours worked, missed, short, late, and/or
interrupted meal periods, rest breaks, etc. in violation of
California law.
The suit contends that the Defendants misclassified workers as
independent contractors, paying them outside of payroll (e.g.
without payroll deductions), and depriving them of various labor
law protections afforded to employees, in violation of Labor Code
226.8.
The Defendants allegedly failed to pay overtime to Plaintiff and
others for hours worked more than 8 hours per day or 40 hours per
week, and instead paid at base rate of pay.
The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants failed to keep
track of the Plaintiffs and other employees' actual hours worked.
Employees' pay was rounded and inaccurate. This is in violation
ofthe "Records" 2 section of Wage Orders 2, 4, 5,15,17 and other
wage orders. Meal and rest breaks violations based on business
necessities, and often short, late, interrupted, or nonexistent.
The Plaintiff sometimes worked over 10 hours without a second meal
break, the suit claims.
In addition, the Defendants dismissed the Plaintiff from his shift,
after arriving to work, multiple times without paying reporting
time for those shifts. The Defendants failed to compensate
Plaintiff for work-related use of his personal cell phone, e.g.
text messages. The Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff's
final pay upon separation.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a caretaker prior to
the pandemic, then again from Oct. 2023 through Dec. 31 2023.
Holmans provides emergency and long term housing for individuals,
persons with disabilities, forensic supportive housing and
community service center.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 549
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (818) 473-5003
Facsimile: (818) 476-5619
E-mail: contact@slawla.com
HOME PARTNERS: Richmond Must File Amended Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK RICHMOND, MICHAEL
MCDERMOTT and KELLEY MCDERMOTT, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. HOME PARTNERS HOLDINGS LLC, HP
WASHINGTON I LLC, HPA BORROWER 2017-1 LLC, SFR BORROWER 2022-2 LLC
, SFR BORROWER 2021-2 LLC, and OPVHHJV, d/b/a PATHLIGHT PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, Case No. 3:22-cv-05704-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Robert Bryan entered an order that:
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and for Appointment
of
Class Representatives and Class Counsel is denied without
prejudice;
-- By Sept. 10, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall file their amended
motion
for certification, if any. Home Partner's response, if any, is
due
by Sept. 30, 2024, and Plaintiffs' reply, if any, is due by
Oct.
4, 2024;
-- Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Robert Kneuper,
Ph.D. is denied without prejudice; and
-- Plaintiffs' motion for leave to submit an additional expert
declaration regarding damages is denied without prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to
all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said
party's last known address.
The tenant-Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants use illegal leases
and engage in practices that violate the Plaintiffs' rights under
Washington's Residential Landlord Tenant Act. The Plaintiffs also
contend that the Defendants breached their duty of good faith and
fair dealing.
On Feb. 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for
certification of a class, appointment of class representatives, and
appointment of class counsel. Home Partners filed its motion for
summary judgment. Home Partners also filed its Motion to Exclude
the Opinions of Robert, Plaintiffs' damages expert, on April 3,
2024.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of a "damages class" under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23 (b)(3), comprising:
"All persons who entered into a rental agreement with the
Defendants in Washington and paid rent or other fees to the
Defendants, since January 2014 to the date of trial in this
matter."
The Plaintiffs also seek certification of an "injunctive class"
under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of:
"All persons within the State of Washington who are leasing
with
The Defendants within the State of Washington."
Home Partners is a national real estate investment and property
management conglomerate.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7c4kBN at no extra
charge.[CC]
HSBC BANK: Ni Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY NI, on behalf of
herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. HSBC BANK
USA, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-00309-AS-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class
certification pursuant to fed. r. civ. p. 23.
HSBC offers personal and online banking, such as loans, mortgages,
savings, investments and credit cards.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r3Nz7b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
HUMANA INC: Faces Iron Workers' Fund Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Humana Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 31, 2024, that in June 2024, a putative
stockholder class action was filed against Humana Inc. and certain
of its current and former executive officers under the federal
securities laws in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware.
The case, captioned "Iron Workers Local 401 Annuity Fund v. Humana,
Inc.," alleges that between July 2022 and January 2024, Humana made
false or misleading statements in its periodic SEC filings and
statements to the financial markets about its financial performance
and the medical costs in its Medicare Advantage business.
Humana Inc. is provider of hospital and medical service plans based
in Louisville KY.
IDAHO: Rossow "THC" Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEEVA ROSSOW, v. DAVE
JEPPESEN, Director, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, in his
official capacity, Case No. 1:23-cv-00131-BLW (D. Idaho), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying a class in this action defined as:
"All women appearing on the State of Idaho Child Protection
Central Registry on or after March 30, 2021 pursuant to IDAPA
16.06.01.563.02.a for use of Tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC") while
pregnant, and all women whom the Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare will in the future "substantiate" for use of THC while
pregnant and placement on the Central Registry pursuant to
IDAPA
16.06.01.563.02.a"; and
-- appointing her counsel as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)
of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare is a public health agency in
the state of Idaho. The department was founded in 1972.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fq289g at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Hearn, Esq.
John B. Ingelstrom, Esq.
HEARN LAW, PLC
151 N. 3rd Ave., Ste. 100
Pocatello, ID 83204
Telephone: (208) 904-0004
Facsimile: (208) 904-1816
E-mail: hearn@hearnlawyers.com
jbi@hearnlawyers.com
- and -
Emily Macmaster, Esq.
MACMASTER LAW, PLLC
3363 N. Lakeharbor Lane
Boise, ID 83703
Telephone: (208) 608-2235
E-mail: emily@macmasterlaw.com
emacmaster07@gmail.com
INDEPENDENCE REALTY: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Independence Realty Trust 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 1, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Sherman Act-related
class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee.
Starting around November 2022, putative class action
representatives began filing complaints in various United States
District Courts across the country naming as defendants RealPage,
Inc. ("RealPage"), a seller of revenue management products, and
approximately 50 defendants who own and/or manage multifamily
residential rental housing, alleging that the defendants conspired
to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize rent prices in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Some of the complaints, including one filed on November 14, 2022 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
named the Company as one of the defendants, and others did not.
On April 10, 2023, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the cases to
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings,
where plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
The Company filed an answer to the consolidated complaint and
asserted affirmative defenses.
It denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend
against these claims vigorously.
Independence Realty Trust, Inc., owns well-located apartment
properties in geographic submarkets that support strong occupancy
and have the potential for growth in rental rates.
INJURED WORKERS: Settlement Class Gets Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS WEBB and MARSCLETTE
CHARLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. INJURED WORKERS PHARMACY, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10797-RGS (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Judge Richard Stearns entered an order
conditionally certifying the Settlement class:
"All individuals residing in the United States for whom the
Defendant has contact information and/or identifying
information,
such as date of birth or Social Security number, whose Personal
Information was potentially compromised in the Data Incident
disclosed by Injured Workers Pharmacy on Feb. 2022."
Injured Workers delivers prescriptions directly to injured
individuals, supplies durable medical and pain management
equipments, and pharmacy compounding services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z6cc89 at no extra
charge.[CC]
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Settlement in Epperson Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSE EPPERSON, V.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-00053-JDC-CBW (W.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge James Cain, Jr. entered a memo granting the
motion for preliminary settlement approval and will deny as moot
the motion to dismiss filed by Occidental and Anadarko.
The court will issue a separate Order setting deadlines relating to
notification and final approval.
Accordingly, the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied and
the court will likely be able to certify the class for settlement
purposes.
This suit arises from alleged ground contamination from two
creosoting facilities in Beauregard Parish, Louisiana.
Specifically, former plaintiff Larry Ashworth asserted that his
property was contaminated by facilities owned, respectively, by
Shreveport Creosoting Company and IP, both of which are located
about five miles from his property.
The claims in this matter are based on alleged tortious acts at two
creosoting plants. The settlement class encompasses:
"all residents, homeowners, and landowners within the
geographical
boundaries depicted in Exhibit E to the Settlement Agreement
(i.e., residents, homeowners, and landowners within the
estimated
boundaries of the floodplain and subsurface aquifer that
extends
from northeast corner of the southeast of boundary of the
American
Creosote DeRidder Superfund Site to the northeast along the
railroad right of way to Louise Street, then south to Rock
Street,
east to Ronald Regan Highway (U.S. Hwy 190), southeast on
Ronald
Regan Highway to Carr de Louisiana 26, southeast along Carr de
Louisiana 26, then south down Townsley Road, then southwest
from
the intersection of Townsley Road and Scallon Road to State
Route
394, to the west-northwest along State Route 394 to Bobby
Stracener Road, before continuing west to Ronald Regan Highway,
and then north-northwest to Ball Road, west along Ball Road to
immediately before the DeRidder Wastewater Treatment Plant and
then north-northwest to the southeast corner of the southeast
boundary of the American Creosote DeRidder Superfund Site)
and/or
other individuals (e.g., former residents) who may have
suffered
bodily injury and/or property damage and might assert a claim
for
associated harms, including compensatory damages, medical
monitoring, economic damages, and/or injunctive relief based on
contamination alleged to emanate from the American Creosote
DeRidder Superfund Site."
International Paper is an American pulp and paper company,
A copy of the Court's memorandum ruling dated Aug. 9, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9g07pf
at no extra charge.[CC]
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
iRhythm 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Exchange Act violation class suit.
On February 6, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court alleging that the Company's current Chief Executive
Officer, Quentin Blackford, the Company's current Chief Financial
Officer, Brice Bobzien, and its former Chief Financial Officer and
former Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Devine violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages purportedly sustained by
the class.
On July 19, 2024, an amended complaint was filed, naming the
Company, Mr. Blackford, Mr. Bobzien, Mr. Devine, its Chief
Commercial Officer Chad Patterson, its former Chief Technology
Officer Mark Day, and its Chief Medical Officer, Chief Scientific
Officer, and Executive Vice President of Product Innovation, Mintu
Turakhia, as defendants.
The Company believes the above securities class action lawsuit to
be without merit and plans to continue to defend itself
vigorously.
iRhythm Technologies Inc. is a digital healthcare company into the
design, development, and commercialization of device-based
technology to provide ambulatory cardiac monitoring services.
J C K AMERICAN TRANSPORT: Khokhar Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sachin Khokhar, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. J C K American Transport, Inc., Azad Pawar,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01211 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on July 23, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01529-MWF-SP to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Collecting Unpaid Wages.
J C K American Transport Inc transports general freight, and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles Douglass Thomas, Esq.
TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION LAW GROUP, PC
1055 East Brokaw Road, Suite 30-355
San Jose, CA 95131
Phone: (866) 535-2006
Email: dthomas@troypllc.com
- and -
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LEGAL, PLLC
41-25, Kissena Boulevard, Apt 1A
Flushing, NY 11355
Phone: (718) 762-2332
Email: tiffanytroy@troypllc.com
JB ECOM: Herrera Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance
-------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JB ECOM LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06078 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 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 Herrera alleges that Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act. He also asserts claims for
violations of the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York
City Human Rights Law in connection with Defendant's failure to to
make its website available in a manner compatible with computer
screen reader programs.
JB ECOM LLC, operates the JB online retail store, as well as the JB
interactive website and advertises, markets, and operates in the
State of New York and throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 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
JDC AUTO: Bielanski Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Violet Bielanski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JDC AUTO LLC, an Illinois registered company,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07125 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 13, 2024), is brought
against the Defendants to stop the Defendant from violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending telemarketing
text messages to consumers without consent including texts to phone
numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call registry
("DNC") and to consumers who have expressly requested that the
texts stop.
Defendant Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of Chicago places solicitation
text messages to consumers, as per Plaintiff's experience. The text
messages that Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of Chicago sends are
solicitations that advertise promotions for new and used vehicles.
To make matters worse, Defendant Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of Chicago
lacks a sufficient internal do not call system, causing consumers
like the Plaintiff in this case to receive unsolicited
telemarketing texts despite having requested that the texts stop.
The Plaintiff has never done business with Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram
of Chicago. She has never purchased a car from this dealership and
she has never had her car serviced at this dealership. The text
messages that Plaintiff Bielanski received are solicitations, as
they advertise promotional sales events and the availability of
vehicles for sale, as well as vehicle trade-in deals.
The unauthorized solicitation text messages that Plaintiff received
from or on behalf of Defendant Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of Chicago
have harmed Plaintiff Bielanski in the form of annoyance, nuisance,
and invasion of privacy, occupied her phone line, and disturbed the
use and enjoyment of her phone. Seeking redress for these injuries,
Plaintiff Bielanski, on behalf of herself and Classes of similarly
situated individuals, brings suit under the TCPA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff received text messages from the Defendant.
JDC Auto LLC operates using the d/b/a Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of
Chicago.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juneitha Shambee, Esq.
SHAMBEE LAW OFFICE, LTD.
701 Main St., Ste. 201A
Evanston, IL. 60202
Phone: 773-741-3602
Email: juneitha@shambeelaw.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dumas Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DUMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JERICO PICTURES, INC., d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC DATA, Case
No. 0:24-cv-61502 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 16, 2024) sues the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information ("PII") of roughly 2 billion people,
including full name, date of birth, address, phone number, Social
Security Number, and other information regarding relatives.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant collects and sells access
to personal data for use in background checks, private
investigations, mobile applications, and by data resellers. The
data Defendant collects is scraped from public and/or non-public
sources, without the data subject's knowledge or consent, and is
compiled into individual profiles.
In April 2024, a cybercriminal called "USDoD" claimed to have
access to almost 2.7 billion records of personal information that
was obtained from National Public Data databases and subsequently
leaked the data on a hacking forum.
To date, the Defendant has failed to send data breach notice
letters to individuals who were affected by the Data Breach
discussing the details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the
vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to
ensure such a breach does not occur again, the suit asserts.
As a result of Defendant's failure to protect the Plaintiff's PII,
the Plaintiff is now required to spend time and money finding and
removing data from data broker websites, the suit adds.
The Defendant is a data aggregator that collects and sells personal
data that it gathers from various data broker websites.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
D. Nicole Guntner, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com
nguntner@awkolaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
JINDAL POLY: Shareholders Seek to Join Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Ayaan Kartik, writing for Outlook Business, reports that two more
minority shareholders are seeking to join the class action lawsuit
being heard by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against
Jindal Poly Films, a unit of the BC Jindal Group. This comes after
a group of shareholders holding 4.99 per cent stake in Jindal Poly
Films moved a class action lawsuit against the company in March
this year.
As per court documents reviewed by Outlook Business, the
applications were filed last month in the NCLT.
The new shareholders are Seetha Kumari, who owns 4.95 per cent
stake in the company and Dinesh Kumar Jain who holds 0.01 per cent
shares, according to court documents. The two combined hold 4.96
per cent. If their plea is accepted, the group of petitioners in
the class action suit together will account for a little less than
10 per cent stake in Jindal Poly Films.
The class action suit filed against Jindal Poly Films under section
245 of the Companies Act accuses the company of selling optionally
convertible preference shares (OCPS) and redeemable preference
shares (RPS) to promoter entity SSJ Trust run by Shyam Sunder
Jindal at depressed valuations causing a loss to minority
shareholders.
A class action lawsuit allows a group of people to file a suit on
behalf of others who have suffered similar losses.
The first group of shareholders have alleged that Jindal Poly Films
continued to invest in Jindal Powertech in return of OCPS and RPS.
This was done despite the investment division of Jindal Poly Films
being demerged in 2013-14 with the stated objective of allowing the
firm to focus on its core business. This investment, the
petitioners allege, was written off from the books of the company
and later was sold to the promoter's entity at depressed
valuations.
They have pleaded before the NCLT to declare the contested
transactions as void and reverse them to the books of Jindal Poly
Films. Alternatively the petitioners want to be compensated for
losses amounting to Rs 2,500 crore. They allege that promoter
entities gained a similar amount through the sale of shares.
Seetha Kumari, one of the new shareholders seeking to join the
petition, alleges she enquired multiple times about the contested
transactions but did not receive a satisfactory answer, according
to the intervention application seen by Outlook Business.
Jindal Poly Films, in case hearings, has questioned the
maintainability of the plea under the Companies Act. The company
has dismissed the charges of loss due to past transactions dubbing
them 'fiction' and argued that the transactions had been approved
by shareholders.
A source aware of the case said the court has issued a notice to
the company for response to intervention applications. Next hearing
in the case is on August 22.
As of June 30, 2024, promoters own about 75 per cent stake in the
company whose market cap is at Rs 3,280 crore. Outlook Business has
reached out to Jindal Poly Films for comment. The story will be
updated if and when there is a response. [GN]
JUSTICE RESOURCE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bodem Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BODEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUSTICE RESOURCE INSTITUTE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-11877-JEK (D. Mass., July 22, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not
limited to, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' first and last
names, addresses, and Social Security numbers (collectively, "PII"
or "Private Information").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, 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 Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members
was safeguarded. The Defendant further disregarded their rights by
failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized
disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and
appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures for the encryption
of data, even for internal use, says the suit.
Justice Resource Institute, Inc. operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization provides outpatient mental health
services including behavioral health, developing abilities, foster
care, and educational and trauma services. [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, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
Email: jarett@ellzeyaw.com
leigh@ellseylaw.com
KALEIDA HEALTH: Must File Class Cert Bid Response by Oct. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cleary, et al., v. Kaleida
Health, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00026 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 7,
2022), the Hon. Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo entered an order the
Defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for class certification
shall be filed on or before Oct. 30, 2024.
-- Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed by: Dec. 4, 2024
-- Oral Argument is set for: Dec. 18, 2024
The nature of suit states Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA)
Kaleida Health, founded in 1998, is a not-for-profit healthcare
network that manages five hospitals in the Buffalo–Niagara Falls
metropolitan area.[CC]
LAC DU FLAMBEAU, WI: Settles Predatory Lending Suit for $37.4MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Kaeding, writing for Wisconsin Public Radio, reports that
Lac du Flambeau tribal leaders and non-tribal payday lenders have
agreed to pay a $37.4 million settlement to borrowers as part of a
federal class-action lawsuit over an alleged predatory lending
scheme.
The deal will include canceling about $1.4 billion in debt from
outstanding loans.
Plaintiffs Lori Fitzgerald, Aaron Fitzgerald and Kevin Williams
brought the class-action lawsuit against tribal leaders four years
ago in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Virginia. They argued that LDF Holdings, the parent company for
tribal lending companies, issued and collected loans with
illegally-high annual interest rates in violation of state and
federal laws. Court documents state the loans often had interest
rates in excess of 700 percent.
LDF Holdings is a subsidiary of the Lac du Flambeau, or LDF,
Business Development Corporation. In an Aug. 6 statement, the
tribe's business arm said it's agreed to pay $2 million as part of
the deal.
"Tribal officials deny that the LDF lending companies participated
in any wrongdoing, asserting that the loans were legal under tribal
law, that the LDF lending companies legally operated in accordance
with tribal law and that borrowers voluntarily agreed to the terms
of the loans," the statement reads.
Tribal officials said the loans benefited many consumers who
couldn't obtain other financing, adding that they're immune from
any legal action. Officials didn't immediately return requests for
comment.
Attorneys for borrowers argue lending practices exploit the poor
Attorneys representing the Fitzgeralds, Williams and others argued
that LDF Holdings and its subsidiaries were formed to evade state
and federal consumer protections and shield non-tribal partners
from liability.
"Under this model, non-tribal payday lenders and their business
partners use Native American tribes to originate illegal loans in
order to facilitate a dubious and legally incorrect claim that the
loans are subject to tribal law and, thus, tribal sovereign
immunity," court filings state.
Court documents state the tribe began partnering with non-tribal
online payday lenders in 2012 following a government crackdown on
illegal lending businesses. LDF Holdings issued and collected loans
nationwide under various businesses. They include multiple limited
liability corporations doing business as Sky Trail Cash, Nine
Torches, Loan at Last, Bright Star Cash and Lendgreen, among
others.
Philadelphia attorney Irv Ackelsberg has represented predatory loan
victims. He said payday lenders are trying to hide behind Native
American tribes to avoid being held accountable for predatory
lending practices.
"It's all done in terms of it's just for economic development on
the reservation," Ackelsberg said. "And probably there's some of
that. Some money does make its way to the tribe."
Even so, Ackelsberg argued it's often a small percentage of
revenues generated. Attorneys argue a large portion of the profits
went to nontribal partners rather than the tribe. They contend
Joseph Wildcat, Sr., the tribe's former president, was
"instrumental in furthering the illegal lending business."
Plaintiffs Lori and Aaron Fitzgerald, who live in Virginia,
received loans from tribal lending companies with interest rates as
high as 750 percent, according to court documents. The loans
violated Virginia's licensing and payday lending laws that bar
charging annual interest rates beyond 12 percent without first
obtaining a license. Plaintiff Kevin Williams, who lives in
Georgia, also obtained loans with interest rates higher than 300
percent in violation of that state's requirements.
Lac du Flambeau Tribal President John Johnson, Sr. told ProPublica
that state laws on lending don't apply to the tribe, saying that
would be "akin to expecting Canada to submit to or speak on the
laws of France."
Deal may apply to around 980,000 people
The settlement applies to consumers nationwide who signed loan
agreements with any of the tribal lending companies between July
24, 2016 and Oct. 1, 2023. Tribal officials estimate the settlement
applies to around 980,000 people.
Loans for members of the class-action settlement will be canceled
within 30 days after a court orders final approval of the
settlement.
District Court Judge Norman K. Moon is set to hold a hearing on
final approval of the settlement on Dec. 13.
The case is not the first to question the tribe's sovereign
immunity related to payday lending. At least 40 civil suits have
been filed by consumers since 2019, according to ProPublica.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in a
separate case involving the tribe and Brian Coughlin, who obtained
a $1,100 loan from the lender Lendgreen. Coughlin later filed for
Chapter 13 bankruptcy before he fully repaid the loan, which should
have triggered a stay on repaying the loan. But he argued the
lender was so aggressive in collection efforts that he attempted to
take his own life.
Coughlin sought a motion in bankruptcy court to enforce a hold on
any collections from the lender or band, but the tribe argued its
sovereign immunity made it exempt from any stay on collections.
Justices rejected that the tribe maintained sovereign immunity in
bankruptcy proceedings. [GN]
LECLERC INSTITUTION: Court Passes Class Suit Over Jail Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Serebrin, writing for The Gazette, reports that a
class-action lawsuit alleging that dehumanizing conditions at a
provincial jail in Laval violated the rights of women held there
has been authorized by a Quebec Superior Court judge.
The suit argues that institutional negligence at the Leclerc
detention centre for women limited access to health care, medicine
and feminine hygiene products and that the use of strip searches
was excessive and degrading.
It also argues the jail's crumbling infrastructure and filthy
conditions "exacerbate the distress experienced by these women and
would have exposed them to cruel and unusual treatment," Justice
Florence Lucas wrote in her decision this month allowing the suit
-- which includes all women who were detained at the jail since
Sept. 6, 2019 -- to move forward.
A former federal prison for men, the Canadian government closed
Leclerc in 2013 because it was too old. But in 2016, Quebec began
moving women awaiting trial or serving short sentences to the
facility.
Despite repairs, conditions in the aging jail have frequently been
criticized in reports and by various organizations, Lucas wrote.
"They denounce the miserable state of the facility, including
cells, common areas and bathrooms that are unsanitary and unfit for
detention, the presence of mould, rodents and bed bugs, the
insufficient heating, the inadequate quality of the water, the
frequent hot water cuts, as well as a soiled, mouldy and cold strip
search room, among other things," the judge wrote.
Women sleep in winter coats and snow comes through holes in the
walls during the colder months, Louise Henry, the lawsuit's
representative plaintiff, told The Gazette in a May interview.
Henry, who was detained at Leclerc on two occasions after she was
arrested for fraud, spending around a year there, said Leclerc was
so bad, she chose to plead guilty and ask for a longer sentence so
she could serve her time in a federal institution.
In Canada, all custodial sentences of two years or more are served
in federal prisons, while those of less than two years are served
in provincial jails. Leclerc and the Quebec City detention centre
are the only provincial jails in the province that hold women.
Strip searches are frequent at Leclerc, despite contraband rarely
being found, the lawsuit alleges, and women are subject to
needlessly invasive searches even when returning from medical
treatment or while moving around the jail.
Henry has said that strip searches at the federal prison for women
in Joliette were less frequent and less invasive.
The lawsuit also alleges that women -- including Henry -- often had
to go days without prescribed medication, which was regularly
delivered in an erratic fashion, and that access to health-care
professionals was limited.
"Deprived of (medication), particularly their psychiatric
medication, women experienced serious physical and psychological
effects, including, in many cases, mental health problems and acute
psychological distress at an important time in their penal or
criminal case,” Lucas wrote as she summarized the allegations.
In one case, Henry said, a fellow detainee who was serving a
three-and-a-half-month sentence for drug possession had a medical
condition that went untreated because of poor access to health care
and ultimately had a leg amputated.
The suit also alleges that women who couldn't afford to buy tampons
from the jail canteen were forced to wear soiled underwear for
days, because there weren't enough sanitary pads provided.
Lawyers for Quebec's Attorney General -- representing the Ministry
of Public Security, which operates the jail -- argued the ministry
wasn't responsible for health care in the jail. Instead, it said
that was the responsibility of the local health authority, the
CISSS de Laval, and the Pinel Institute, a psychiatric hospital.
The government also argued the ministry wasn't responsible for the
maintenance of the facility and that another branch of government,
the Société québécoise des infrastructures, which signed the
lease with the federal government, was responsible for the physical
infrastructure.
Lucas rejected those arguments.
"The law entrusts correctional services with the care of
incarcerated people, and then with the responsibility of assessing
them and calling in health professionals when necessary,” she
wrote, adding that the Supreme Court has found that while the
government can mandate another entity to carry out certain tasks,
it cannot relinquish its responsibility.
The Quebec government has said it plans to close the Leclerc jail
and build a new one in Ahuntsic-Cartierville, a plan opposed by
many local residents.
The lawsuit seeks $5,000 in damages for each strip search the women
experienced and at least $5,000 in damages for each woman who
required health care during their incarceration. The lawsuit also
seeks $5 million in punitive damages, for the court to order the
end of rights violations and may seek further damages. [GN]
LGBCOIN LTD: Class Cert Bid Response Due Oct. 2
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC DE FORD, SANDRA BADER
and SHAWN R. KEY, v. JAMES KOUTOULAS and LGBCOIN, LTD, Case No.
6:22-cv-00652-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul Byron
entered an order that:
1. Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Lead
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of
Class
Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel is granted
in
part and denied in part.
2. Defendants shall depose Plaintiffs on or before Sept. 11,
2024.
a. Plaintiffs shall make themselves available for such
depositions, pursuant to the Court Order granting
Defendants'
Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Depositions.
b. The parties are limited to conducting one (1) deposition
per
week.
3. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, [and]
Appointment of Class Counsel on or before Oct. 2, 2024.
Thereafter, the Plaintiffs shall reply to the response on or
before Oct. 16, 2024.
Considering the circumstances of this case, the Defendants'
diligence, and the Magistrate Judge's ruling on the Motion to
Compel, the Court grants Defendants an extension of time.
The Plaintiffs initiated this action on April 1, 2022.
Ultimately, after three (3) amended complaints and a Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") stay of the case, the
Court issued an Order ruling on several motions to dismiss.
Then, on April 25, 2024, the Court issued an amended Case
Management and Scheduling Order. Therein, the Court accommodated
the parties' requested dates for the class certification motion,
response, and reply deadlines.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LPgjee at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIVANOVA USA: Chaudhry Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE CHAUDHRY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVANOVA USA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:24-cv-02506 (S.D. Tex., July 3, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
and Class Members' protected health information, personally
identifiable information (PII), stored within Defendant's
information network.
The Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant, dated June 14,
2024, stating that his PHI/PII was involved in the data breach. The
Plaintiff's data that has been exposed in the breach include Social
Security numbers and healthcare information. Moreover, the
Plaintiff has suffered imminent and impending injury arising from
the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and
misuse resulting from their PHI/PII. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust
enrichment.
Headquartered in Houston, TX, LivaNova USA is a medical device
manufacturing company that creates neuromodulation devices and
cardiopulmonary products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: 214-744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
LTF CLUB: Turner Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL TURNER,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, v. LTF
CLUB MANAGEMENT CO, LLC, an unknown business entity; LIFE TIME
FITNESS, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00046-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff, on Oct. 17, 2024, will move the Court as follows:
1. Certifying the following Class:
"All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
who
worked for the Defendants Life Time, Inc. (erroneously sued
as
Life Time Fitness, Inc.) and LTF Club Management Co., LLC,
(collectively, "Defendants" or "Life Time") within the State
of
California at any time during the period from Nov. 21, 2015
up
to the deadline, to be determined by the Court at a later
date,
by which class members may opt-out after being provided
notice
of certification";
2. Appointing Plaintiff Samuel Turner as the Class
Representative;
3. Appointing the following individuals as Class Counsel: Graham
B.
LippSmith and Celene Chan Andrews of LippSmith LLP and Arby
Aiwazian, Elizabeth Parker-Fawley and Arman Marukyan of
Lawyers
for Justice, PC; and
4. Requiring Lifetime to provide to Plaintiff's Counsel an
up-to-
date list of all potential class members, including their
names,
last four digits of their social security numbers, last known
telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, and last
known
residential and mailing addresses, within 30 days following
the
date the Court grants class certification.
LTF Club is in the health fitness resort hospitality business.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QGsoru at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
Elizabeth Parker-Fawley, Esq.
Arman Marukyan, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone (818) 265-1020
Facsimile (818) 265-1021
E-mail: arby@calljustice.com
elizabeth@calljustice.com
arman@calljustice.com
- and -
Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
Celene Chan Andrews, Esq.
LIPPSMITH LLP
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone (213) 344-1820
Facsimile (213) 513-2495
E-mail: g@lippsmith.com
cca@lippsmith.com
MDL 2903: Settlement in Fieker v Fisher-Price Wins Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fieker v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01075 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting the motion for
preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of
class action settlement.
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an
RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are:
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
refund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees; and
(iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request is finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.
The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.
The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.
The Fieker case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY
SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1NewUa at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Settlement in Hanson v. Fisher-Price Wins Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hanson v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01087 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey
Crawford entered an order granting the motion for preliminary
certification of a settlement class and approval of class action
settlement.
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an
RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are:
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
refund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees; and
(iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request is finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.
The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.
The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.
The Hanson case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY
SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=darlab at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Settlement in Kimmel v Fisher-Price Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimmel v. Fisher Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00695 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting the motion for
preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of
class action settlement.
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an
RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are:
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
refund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees; and
(iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request is finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.
The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.
The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.
The Kimmel case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY
SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and
torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3A6I7S at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Settlement in Mulvey v Fisher-Price Wins Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mulvey v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00518 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting the motion for
preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of
class action settlement.
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an
RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are:
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
refund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees; and
(iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request is finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.
The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.
The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.
The Mulvey case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY
SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GwL6Vu at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Settlement in Pasternacki v Fisher-Price Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pasternacki v. Fisher
Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00941 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting the motion for
preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of
class action settlement.
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an
RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are:
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
refund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees; and
(iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request is finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.
The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.
The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.
The Pasternacki case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY
SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ZLtgS at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Settlement in Willis v Fisher-Price Wins Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Willis v. Fisher-Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01107 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting the motion for
preliminary certification of a settlement class and approval of
class action settlement.
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Colombia,
Puerto
Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the class period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (including by gift) an
RNPS, or (b) have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are:
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a
cash
refund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumer at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees; and
(iv) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from Class, as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request is finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints Demet Basar, James Eubank and Paul Evans as
class counsel.
The Court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renne Wray.
The Defendants shall bear the cost of the Settlement Administrator
up to $250,000. The Plaintiff shall no be responsible for these
costs.
The Willis case is consolidated in FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY
SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=darlab at no extra
charge.[CC]
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Court Appoints Cuomo as Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER ARMSTRONG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST, INC. ("MPW"), EDWARD K. ALDAG, JR., R.
STEVEN HAMNER, and J. KEVIN HANNA, Case No. 1:23-cv-08597-VSB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon Broderick entered an order
granting Cuomo's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for
approval of lead counsel.
Jusdge Broderick says that Cuomo is the presumptive lead plaintiff
and no other movant has rebutted that presumption. Moreover, Cuomo
has a substantial financial interest in the action, and meets the
typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. The Clerk of Court
is requested to terminate the pending motion. Within seven days of
the Order, the parties shall file a proposed schedule for any
answer or motion in response.
On Sept. 29, 2023, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action
complaint against MPW, as well as its Chairman, President, and
Chief Executive Officer Edward K. Aldag, Jr; its Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer R. Steven Hamner; and its
Vice President, Controller, Assistant Treasurer, and Chief
Accounting Officer J. Kevin Hanna ("Individual Defendants"),
alleging that MPW and Individual Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by misleading
investors about MPW's recapitalization transaction with Prospect
Medical Holdings, Inc., a healthcare management services
organization.
On Nov. 28, 2023, Cuomo filed a motion requesting that he be
appointed as lead plaintiff, and for approval of Pomerantz LLP as
lead counsel.
Medical Properties is a real estate investment trust that invests
in healthcare facilities subject to NNN lease.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2v9umP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
Thomas Henry Przybylowski, Esq.
Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
Jonathan David Park, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
New York, NY
- and -
Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
Monsey, NY
The Defendants are represented by:
Nathaniel Desmons Cullerton, Esq.
Sarah Kathleen Eddy, Esq.
William D Savitt, Esq.
Adabelle Ekechukwu, Esq.
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
New York, NY
META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Block Class Suit Over Inflated Metrics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis of Media Daily News reports that Meta Platforms will
ask the Supreme Court to block advertisers from proceeding with a
class-action fraud lawsuit over inflated metrics, the company told
a federal appellate court on Wednesday, August 14.
Meta disclosed its plans in a petition asking the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals to stay a recent 2-1 decision allowing Facebook and
Instagram advertisers to bring a class-action on behalf of all U.S.
advertisers who used Facebook's Ad Manager or Power Editor to
purchase ads after August 15, 2014.
That ruling, issued earlier this year, "raises questions of
far-reaching importance" regarding fraud class actions, Meta writes
in its request for a stay.
The company adds that the ruling conflicts with decisions issued by
other federal appellate courts, and also could lead judges to
routinely allow fraud cases to proceed as class-actions.
The long-running battle dates to 2018, when business owner Danielle
Singer alleged in a class-action complaint that Facebook induced
advertisers to purchase more ads, and pay more for them, by
overstating the number of users who might see the ads. (Singer
later dropped out of the litigation, and DZ Reserve, which operated
an e-commerce store, and Max Martialis, which sold weapons
accessories, became the lead plaintiffs.)
The initial complaint cited a report by the industry organization
Video Advertising Bureau, which said in 2017 that Facebook's
estimates of audience reach in every U.S. state were higher than
the states' populations. The advertisers added in an amended
complaint brought in 2020 that Facebook employees were aware of
complaints about the potential reach metric since September 2015.
Meta had argued to a trial judge and the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals that the case shouldn't proceed as a class-action because
advertisers on the platform didn't have enough in common.
The company wrote in a brief filed with the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals that advertisers on Meta ranged from "sole proprietors to
multinational corporations to governments," and that it wasn't
possible to "collectively adjudicate the unique mix of information
seen by each advertiser."
In March, a panel of the 9th Circuit rejected Meta's argument,
writing in a 2-1 decision that fraud claims are "particularly well
suited to class treatment."
Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest dissented, writing that the issues
in the case involve "individualized questions," including whether
every advertiser in the class relied on misrepresentations by the
company.
Meta then unsuccessfully sought a new hearing at the 9th Circuit.
The company argued that the critical question isn't whether it made
misrepresentations, but how the alleged misrepresentations affected
advertisers.
"If simply identifying the purported fraud were enough to certify a
class, then all fraud class actions would be certified," Meta
argued.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce backed Meta's request, arguing in a
friend-of-the-court brief that Meta's advertisers received
individualized metrics, and therefore don't have enough in common
to be able to proceed as a class.
Last week, the 9th Circuit rejected Meta's request for a new
hearing. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Starzinski Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alan Starzinski, Oladeji Odumosu, Aurelio
Medina, and Darrnell McCoy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No.
24CV441982 was removed from the Superior Court of the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on July 25,
2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-04501-AMO.
The Plaintiffs' initial Complaint brings three claims against Meta:
one claim for violation of the Federal Wiretap Act; and two claims
for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth K. McCloskey, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111-3715
Phone: 415.393.8200
Facsimile: 415.393.8306
Email: emccloskey@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Phone: 415.693.2000
Facsimile: 415.693.2222
Email: rhodesmg@cooley.com
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Sept. 12 Donahue Phone Conference Adjourned
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL DONAHUE, v.,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-05196-DEH-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order adjourning
the telephone conference scheduled for Sept. 12, 2024, sine die
pending Defendant's filing of a response to the Complaint.
This action has been referred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
636(b)(1)(A), to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for general
pretrial management, including scheduling discovery,
non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement.
All pretrial motions and applications, including those relating to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must
be made to Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her
Individual Practices, available on the Court’s website at
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.
Metropolitan offers annuities, auto, dental, home, disabilities,
life, vision, accident, and health insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uQiynN at no extra
charge.[CC]
MICHAEL NIERENBERG: Adler Sues Over Certificate Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Adler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MICHAEL NIERENBERG, DAVID SALTZMAN, KEVIN J. FINNERTY,
PATRICE M. LE MELLE, PEGGY HWAN HEBARD, ANDREW SLOVES, and RITHM
CAPITAL CORP., Case No. 2024-0797- (Del. Chancery Ct., July 25,
2024), is brought against Rithm and the Individual
Defendants--i.e., the members of Rithm's Board--for violating the
Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the
"Certificate").
The Certificate provides that Rithm's Board be divided into three
classes with staggered, three-year terms. Each of these classes
"shall consist, as nearly as may be possible, of one-third of the
total number of directors constituting the entire Board of
Directors." Certificate, Fifth Article, subsection (c) (setting
forth the "Equal Classes Requirement"). The Certificate further
provides that, "if the number of directors is changed, any increase
or decrease shall be apportioned among the classes so as to
maintain the number of directors in each class as nearly equal as
possible."
Due to a change in composition, the Board's classes became unevenly
staggered at the annual meeting of Rithm stockholders held on May
25, 2023 (the "2023 Annual Meeting"). Since that time, the Board
has been unevenly staggered, with one director in Class I, three
directors in Class II, and two directors in Class III.
Recognizing this plain violation of the Equal Classes Requirement,
Plaintiff, via correspondence dated May 2, 2024, demanded that the
Board take action to bring its structure into compliance with the
Certificate (the "Demand"). The Board seemingly acknowledged that
it is violating the Certificate yet, inexplicably, rejected the
Demand. The Plaintiff therefore brings this action to compel
compliance with the Certificate, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Rithm stockholder.
Rithm Capital Corp. is a global asset manager focused on real
estate, credit, and financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 654-1888
- and -
Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
Ankita Sangwan, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
- and -
William J. Fields, Esq.
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Samir Shukurov, Esq.
FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404
Pleasantville, NY 10570
Phone: (212) 231-1500
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Wolf Suit Removed to W.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kelsey Wolf, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES,
INC., Case No. CT-2771-24 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
on Aug. 16, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02586.
The Plaintiff brings one antitrust claim against MAA, alleging
violations of Tenn. Code Ann. Specifically, she alleges that MAA
conspired with other entities, including the software and data
analytics company RealPage, Inc., to raise the price of
"multifamily residential real estate leases in the State of
Tennessee." According to the complaint, MAA and other multifamily
residential real estate providers used RealPage as a "mechanism" to
share "competitively sensitive real-time pricing and supply levels"
with each other, which RealPage allegedly used to "make
unit-specific pricing and supply decisions" for MAA and other
multifamily providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan G. Crone, Esq.
W. Patrick Crone, Esq.
88 Union Avenue (13th Floor)
Memphis, TN 38103
Email: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
pcrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
- and -
Thomas J. H. Brill, Esq.
8012 State Line Road Ste 102
Leawood, KS 66208
Email: brillkc@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John R. Branson, Esq.
Kelsey W. McKinney, Esq.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
First Horizon Building
165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
Memphis, TN 38103
Phone: (901) 526-2000
Email: jbranson@bakerdonelson.com
kmckinney@bakerdonelson.com
- and -
Britt M. Miller, Esq.
Daniel T. Fenske, Esq.
Matthew D. Provance, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 782-0600
Email: bmiller@mayerbrown.com
dfenske@mayerbrown.com
mprovance@mayerbrown.com
MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH: Moilanen Files Suit in D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MNGI Digestive
Health, P.A. The case is styled as Sean Moilanen, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MNGI Digestive
Health, P.A., Case No. 0:24-cv-02708-PJS-LIB (D. Minn., Aug. 7,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
MNGI Digestive Health -- https://www.mngi.com/ -- is a nationally
recognized leader in gastroenterology diagnosis, quality and
care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad C. Alexander, Esq.
SIEBEN POLK, P.A.
2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 50
Eagan, MN 55121
Phone: (651) 437-3148
Fax: (651) 437-2732
Email: calexander@siebenpolklaw.com
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Soberg Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA SOBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH, P.A., Defendant, Case
No. 27-CV-24-11202 (Minn. Dist., Hennepin Cty., July 26, 2024) is
an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure
and safeguard sensitive information of its customers.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class members'
sensitive personal information ("SPI") was compromised due to the
Defendant's negligent and careless acts and omissions and the
failure to protect the SPI of Plaintiff and Class members. The SPI
of the Plaintiff and the Class was compromised as a result of the
Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect consumers' SPI, (ii)
adequately warn its current and former customers and potential
customers of its inadequate information security practices, and
(iii) effectively monitor its platforms for security
vulnerabilities and incidents (the "Class"), says the suit.
MNGI Digestive Health, P.A. specializes in the diagnosis and
treatment of adult and pediatric digestive system disorders. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Schuster Class Action Suit Filed in. D. Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against MNGI Digestive Health, P.A.,
captioned as JOHN SCHUSTER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH,
P.A., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-2874 (DWF/DJF) (D. Minn., July 22,
2024).
The case was reassigned to Judge Donovan W. Frank and Magistrate
Judge Dulce J. Foster for all further proceedings.
MNGI Digestive Health, P.A. specializes in the diagnosis and
treatment of adult and pediatric digestive system disorders. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 767-3613
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
MONTE NIDO: Bracco Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Bracco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MONTE NIDO HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-23120-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2024), is brought arising from the Defendant's
failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information
("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (together, Private
Information") of its present or former patients and employees,
which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems
between September 16, 2023, and September 22, 2023, and the
compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private
Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and
the proposed members.
The Defendant detected unusual activity in its computer systems and
ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its
IT network email and obtained certain files contained within
between September 16, 2023, and September 22, 2023 ("Data
Breach").
As a result of the Data Breach, which the Defendant failed to
prevent, the Private Information of Defendant's present or former
patients and employees, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class
members, were stolen, including their name, Social Security number,
address, date of birth, contact information, driver's license or
government identification number, individual taxpayer
identification number, passport number, digital signature,
financial information, workers' compensation claim information,
medical information and health insurance information.
The Defendant's investigation concluded that the Private
Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and
other Class Members information. The Defendant's failure to
safeguard Patients highly sensitive Private Information as exposed
and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common
law duty, Florida law, and Defendant's implied contract with its
present or former patients and employees to safeguard their Private
Information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was an employee of Monte Nido from 2018 until 2020
and received a Notice of Data Breach from Defendant on August 9,
2024.
Monte Nido Holdings, LLC, is a mental health provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
MONTE NIDO: Casey Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
---------------------------------------------------
Emily Casey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. MONTE NIDO & AFFILIATES HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-23119-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2024), is brought arising
from Monte Nido's failure to protect highly sensitive data.
Monte Nido stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") about its current and former patients. But Monte Nido lost
control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its
insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the
"Data Breach").
According to Defendant's Breach Notice, the cybercriminals had
access to Monte Nido's network from September 16, 2023 until
September 22, 2023--an entire week--before the breach was
discovered. In other words, Monte Nido had no effective means to
prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its
systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to
its current and former patients' PHI.
On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach Monte
Nido's systems because Monte Nido failed to adequately train its
employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PHI. In
short, Monte Nido's failures placed the Class's PHI in a vulnerable
position rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals.
The exposure of one's PHI to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot
be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and patients'
private information was exactly that--private. Not anymore. Now,
their private information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach
notice
Monte Nido is a Florida-based mental health provider that
specializes in the treatment of eating disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq.
JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC
478 E. Altamonte Dr., Ste. 108-570
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
Phone: (407) 720-4057
Email: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com
- and -
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Fax: (608) 509-4423
Email: raina@turkestrauss.com
MOXION POWER CO: Hamilton Files Suit in D. Delaware
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moxion Power Co. The
case is styled as Ross Hamilton, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Moxion Power Co., Case No.
24-50109-BLS (D. Del., Aug. 16, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as 02 Other (e.g. Other Actions That
Would Have Been Brought in State Court if Unrelated to
Bankruptcy).
Moxion -- https://www.moxionpower.com/ -- is pioneering mobile
energy storage to change the way we move energy through our
environment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Huggett
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
300 Delaware Ave., Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801 U.S.A
Phone: (302) 888-1112
Fax: (302) 888-1119
Email: jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com
MRS. FIELDS GIFTS: Bid to Dismiss Curry Class Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIM CURRY; STUART ROGOFF;
MONIQUE BROOKINS; VALERIE GRUENKE; EMMA MENDOZA; ALEXIS BELL; DAWN
WILKINS; CARLOS ROMERO; KATHI CASSI; TAMARA JOHNSON; VERONICA
CALLAHAN; AMANDA PARKS; MARSHONNTRI AUSTIN; LINDA MICHAUD; and LOIS
COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MRS. FIELDS GIFTS, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-00651-JNP-DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge entered an order
denying Mrs. Fields's motion to dismiss.
The court is satisfied that the timeliness issue raised by Mrs.
Fields is not obvious, nor would certification be clearly
impossible. Thus, while determining the contours of the appropriate
class (including on grounds related to the timely accrual of
NISNPIA claims) may no doubt be required in this action, this is
not the appropriate juncture to do so.
At this point, Mrs. Fields invites the court to stretch Rule 12(f)
beyond recognition—using a procedural mechanism for striking
allegations to coax legal conclusions from the court and preview
class certification. The court declines the invitation.
The Plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Fields disclosed their private
information in violation of a Utah data-privacy statute.
The Plaintiffs are fifteen former Mrs. Fields consumers who allege
that Mrs. Fields disclosed nonpublic information that it obtained
as a result of transacting with them. This information includes
their "full names, home addresses, and fact that the listed
individuals are Mrs. Fields customers . . . as well as myriad other
categories of individualized data and demographic information such
as gender and the dollar amount of the products purchased.".
Mrs. Fields is a snack-food company that sells[,] advertises,
offers, and sells its products and services to consumers in its
catalogues and on its website.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l7wV8S at no extra
charge.[CC]
MULTIPLAN INC: Robinson Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Curtis F. Robinson M.D., Inc. doing business as:
Panoramic Medicine, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated v. MULTIPLAN, INC., a New York corporation, AETNA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, THE CIGNA GROUP, a Delaware corporation, and
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:24-cv-02993 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 8, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06802 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
MultiPlan, Inc. -- https://www.multiplan.us/ -- provides healthcare
cost management solutions. The Company specializes in providing
claim cost management solutions for controlling the financial risks
associated with medical bills.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Franscisco, IL 94111
Email: ysalahi@edelson.com
- and -
Julian Zhu, Esq.
Natasha J. Fernandez-Silber, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 589-6370
Email: jzhu@edelson.com
nfernandezsilber@edelson.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Anna M. Rathbun, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 637-2200
Email: anna.rathbun@lw.com
- and -
Brendan A. McShane, Esq.
Sadik Harry Huseny, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 391-0600
Email: brendan.mcshane@lw.com
sadik.huseny@lw.com
- and -
Katherine A. Rocco, Esq.
Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 906-1200
Email: katherine.rocco@lw.com
lawrence.buterman@lw.com
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces Cassina Suit Over Membership Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE CASSINA GROUP, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS (NAR);
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC; FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS; ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS; MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS; NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC.;
PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS; SOUTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, Case No. 1:24-cv-07402 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 16, 2024) is an
antitrust class action seeking damages and injunctive relief for
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.
section 1, concerning a NAR requirement that its members pay
membership fees to NAR as well as to a state and a local real
estate association.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself, and all other
similarly situated NAR member real estate brokers and agents, who
were required to become members of and pay membership fees to: (i)
NAR; (ii) a state real estate association; and (iii) a local real
estate association in accordance with the NAR requirements from
Aug. 19, 2024, until the present (the "Class Period").
NAR members are required to pay membership dues to three real
estate associations. NAR's "three-way agreement" violates the
antitrust laws because it eliminates competition in the market for
real estate association membership between the national, state and
local real estate membership associations and artificially inflates
or stabilizes membership dues among these associations, the
Plaintiff avers.
This "three-way agreement" membership requirement also serves as a
condition precedent for NAR members who desire access to lockboxes
at properties listed on a NAR Multiple Listing Service ("MLS"). A
"lockbox" is a device which securely holds the key(s) to a property
and allows authorized NAR brokers/agents to access the device in
order to obtain the property keys and access the property. NAR's
implementation of the "three-way agreement" as a condition
precedent for NAR brokers and agents to use lockboxes has led NAR
brokers and agents to become deprived of a "competitive choice" by
being forced to obtain memberships in three real estate
associations to obtain lockbox access. As a direct and proximate
result of NAR's "three-way agreement" and NAR Policy Statement
7.31, the Plaintiff sustained antitrust injury and was forced to
pay artificially inflated membership dues in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act and state unjust enrichment laws, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff is a real estate firm in the State of South Carolina.
The Plaintiff has been forced to pay for redundant realtor
association memberships. The Plaintiff will continue to be injured
in its business or property unless the requested declaratory and
injunctive relief is granted.
NAR is a national trade association of state and regional real
estate associations, brokers, agents and other licensed entities
and individuals that conduct business in the market for real estate
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
Mathew Van Tine, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1320
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 332-3400
E-mail: MMiller@millerlawllc.com
MVantine@millerlawllc.com
- and -
Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
Nathaniel Blakney, Esq.
Hannan Seirafi, Esq.
P. Graham Maiden, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
800 Third Avenue, Suite 2401
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 577-0050
E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
nblakney@motleyrice.com
hseirafi@motleyrice.com
gmaiden@motleyrice.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Attys Gain Big Payout in $2.7BB Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Fuel reports that the billion settlement involving the NCAA
marks a major move in the ongoing debate over student-athlete
compensation, stemming from a class-action lawsuit that accused the
NCAA of violating antitrust laws by capping the compensation
available to student-athletes
But it also provides big pay days for the firms involved, who stand
to gain more than $500 million in legal fees. Specifically, they
can request up to $495 million from the damages part of the
settlement, which is to be paid out over a period of ten years,
according to a Reuters report on the settlement.
The settlement resolves three lawsuits claiming that the NCAA's
rules prohibited payments to athletes in a way that violated U.S.
antitrust law.
The cases involved commercial use of athlete names and images,
another about athletic service and a third related to academic
activity.
The settlement provides monetary damages -- some players could get
more than $1 million -- and separately will allow schools to
directly pay their athletes for the first time. The plaintiffs'
lawyers have estimated the value of those new payments and benefits
at $20 billion over the ten-year settlement span.
The Big Hourly Rate
The NCAA called the settlement a "step in the ongoing effort to
provide increased benefits to student-athletes while creating a
stable and sustainable model for the future of college sports."
The three law firms involved in the litigation said in court papers
that they dedicated about 67,635 hours to the case so far,
corresponding to about $47 million based on billing rates.
Hagens Berman has been a successful litigation and class action
specialist with nine offices across the country, which has
successfully pursued complex claims for 30 years. The lead lawyer
in the NCAA case also saw the firm achieve a 'concussion protocol'
for the NCAA and saw firm principal Steve Bereman (pictured above)
work with Jeffrey Kessler a sports lawyer and litigator at Winston
& Strawn leading the litigation.
The case has gained wide attention, not only for its implications
on college sports but also for the financial dynamics at play with
the major fee payouts to the lawyers.
For student-athletes, the settlement represents a victory in their
quest for fair compensation, but the issue at large now is how the
settlement funds will be distributed.
Beyond the immediate financial implications, this case sets a
precedent for future litigation concerning student-athlete
compensation and could influence how similar cases are approached
and resolved in the future.
As the NCAA navigates the aftermath of this settlement, the broader
implications for student-athletes and the organization itself will
continue to unfold.
As the dust settles, the impact of this case will likely
reverberate across the NCAA and beyond, influencing future legal
and policy decisions in the realm of college athletics.
And it will also to serve notice on the long game played by
successful class action law firms. [GN]
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Antitrust Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague and Freedman Normand Friedland filed an antitrust
class action against the National Collegiate Athletics Association
(NCAA) and ten of its member institutions. The suit alleges that
the NCAA has illegally agreed to prohibit current and former
Canadian Hockey League (CHL) players from playing NCAA Division I
men's ice hockey.
"This case was filed on behalf of Canadian Hockey League (CHL)
players against the NCAA and several universities whom, we allege,
have colluded to bar CHL players from playing hockey in U.S.
colleges," said Eric L. Cramer, Chairperson of Berger Montague. "As
a result of the alleged NCAA cartel, the CHL is impaired in its
ability to compete with the NCAA and thus pays CHL players less as
a result," added Mr. Cramer.
In the complaint, the plaintiff -- a former CHL player -- alleges
that the defendants' agreement violates federal antitrust laws and
has caused current and former CHL players to suffer substantial
harm, including from (i) losing out on valuable athletic
scholarships from NCAA Division I schools, and (ii) receiving
artificially low compensation from CHL teams.
The plaintiff seeks an order prohibiting the NCAA and its member
institutions from continuing to prevent current and former CHL
players from playing NCAA Division I men's ice hockey. In addition,
the plaintiff seeks damages for himself, and for other current and
former CHL players, to compensate them for all harm caused by the
defendants' conduct, including the alleged substantial harm.
The named defendants are the National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Canisius University, Niagara University, Rochester
Institute of Technology, Boston College, Boston University,
University of Denver, Quinnipiac University, University of Notre
Dame du Lac, Stonehill College, and University of St. Thomas.
For more information on the litigation, including information about
how you can get involved, go to NCAAHockeyBoycott.com or visit
Berger Montague.com.
Berger Montague is one of the nation's preeminent law firms
focusing on complex civil litigation, class actions, and mass torts
in federal and state courts throughout the United States. The firm
is active in the fields of antitrust, commercial litigation,
consumer protection, defective products, environmental law,
employment law, securities, and whistleblower cases, among many
other practice areas. For more than 50 years, Berger Montague has
played lead roles in precedent-setting cases and has recovered over
$60 billion for its clients and the classes they have represented.
Berger Montague is headquartered in Philadelphia and has offices in
Chicago, Minneapolis, San Diego, San Francisco, Toronto,
Washington, D.C., and Wilmington.
Freedman Normand Friedland is a litigation boutique comprised of
attorneys from the top law firms throughout the country. The firm
and its attorneys have extensive experience in complex commercial
litigation, including in path-breaking antitrust, securities, and
market manipulation matters.
Contact:
Amy Wall-Monte
(215) 875-3021
awallmonte@bm.net [GN]
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Masterson Alleges Antitrust Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
RYLAN MASTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
CANISIUS UNIVERSITY, NIAGARA UNIVERSITY, ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, BOSTON COLLEGE, BOSTON UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF
DENVER, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME DU LAC,
STONEHILL COLLEGE, and UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00754 (W.D.N.Y., August 12, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act by agreeing
and enforcing a rule that prohibits anyone who has ever played in
the Canadian Hockey League from playing National Collegiate
Athletic Association Division I hockey.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' scheme prevents
competition between the CHL and NCAA for top-end players and thus
artificially suppresses compensation for players and artificially
creates less competitive leagues. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks
to enjoin the Boycott and to remedy the harm it has caused,
including through money damages, trebled under the antitrust laws.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, IN, NCAA is an unincorporated
association that acts as the governing body of college sports.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
Edward Normand, Esq.
Amos Friedland, Esq.
Richard A. Lafont, Esq.
Stephen Lagos, Esq.
FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP
10 Grand Central
155 E. 44th Street, Suite 905
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 350-0527
E-mail: vel@fnf.law
tnormand@fnf.law
afriedland@fnf.law
rlafont@fnf.law
slagos@fnf.law
- and -
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
pmadden@bm.net
- and -
Robert E. Litan, Esq.
Hope Brinn, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1001 G Street, NW Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 559-9740
E-mail: rlitan@bm.net
hbrinn@bm.net
- and -
Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (800) 424-6690
E-mail: jdavis@bm.net
NATIONAL ENROLLMENT: Human Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daniel Human, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Enrollment Center, LLC, Case
No. 24SL-CC02959 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on Aug. 14, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-01121 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
National Enrollment Services -- https://nesbenefits.com/ -- leads
the field in offering custom benefit solutions that reward
employees while allowing employers continued business growth.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Evan Jefferson, Esq.
Michael L. Jente, Esq.
LEWIS RICE LLC - St. Louis
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 444-7631
Email: ejefferson@lewisrice.com
mjente@lewisrice.com
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Cockrell Sues Over Illegally Increased Balance
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Cockrell, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-01780
(C.D. Call., Aug. 14, 2024), is brought seeking relief from these
violations and the injuries Navient caused under the Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") as a result of the Defendants illegally
increased the principal balance.
In August 2023, Defendants illegally increased the principal
balance on Cockrell's student loan by $71.44. This increase in
Cockrell's balance violated various applicable regulations under
the Higher Education Act of 1965 ("HEA"), says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the Orange County.
Navient Corporation is a Delaware Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ethan Preston, Esq.
PRESTON LAW OFFICES
4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310
Dallas, TX 75204
Phone: (972) 564-8340
Facsimile: (866) 509-1197
Email: ep@eplaw.us
NEW SOUTH WALES: Candidates Sue Over Unextended Nomination Period
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peta Rasdien, writing for The Nightly, reports that candidates who
missed out on nominating for council elections after an
embarrassing head office blunder are considering a potentially
costly class action against the NSW Liberal Party.
About 150 people are believed to have had their local government
aspirations dashed after the party missed a crucial deadline to
file paperwork last week.
And, on Saturday, August 17, the NSW Electoral Commission denied a
request from party president Don Harwin that the nomination period
be extended.
There are predictions the disaster could cost the party more than
50 winnable seats in 16 local government areas and destroy people's
political careers.
Lawyer and former Waverley mayor George Newhouse says some of the
affected candidates are considering legal action to recover the
loss of potentially four years of councillor fees and the money
already spent donating to the party and on campaigns.
"Those individuals are really suffering as a result of what's
happened that Liberal Party head office," he said on ABC radio.
"I don't want to breach confidence as people are very scared of
their political careers, and you can only imagine taking on the
Liberal Party is a big ask, so I'm not going to quote numbers, but
there are around 150 people affected, and they've all paid
application fees and they're all suffering some kind of loss right
now.
"I've been told that some individuals have personally donated
thousands of dollars through central coffers of the Liberal Party
towards their campaign. They've had friends and family donate
thousands of dollars. Now what's going to happen to those funds,
are they going to be refunded to the individuals?"
Mr Newhouse said he and others were investigating whether a class
action was viable to recover people's losses from the Liberal
Party.
"I've been speaking to barristers and early next week we should be
in a position to say whether there is a case in these
circumstances, and we're still learning about what went wrong at
Liberal Party headquarters to work out whether that failure can
lead to an actionable case, then we have to work with lead
plaintiffs to develop a class action and then you proceed in the
Supreme Court of New South Wales."
Mr Newhouse said it would have been gut-wrenching for the would-be
candidates to have been failed in this way.
"This could destroy people's political careers. It's put them out
of pocket and it's a shambles and it's actually a disgrace in terms
of democracy, people are entitled to fight."
Already, the debacle has claimed the scalp of NSW Liberal Director
Richard Shields who was sacked after the "mind-boggling" failure.
In a statement issued after an emergency meeting late on Thursday
night (August 15) , the party's state president Don Harwin said its
executive had unanimously decided to terminate Shields' employment
over the fiasco.
"The state director was allowed to explain the circumstances to the
state executive," it said.
"This failure to meet such a fundamental responsibility has
rendered his position untenable. As a result the state executive
has unanimously resolved to terminate the state director's
employment with immediate effect." [GN]
NEW YORK: General Pre-Trial Management Order Entered in J.Z. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.Z. et al., v. NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09779-DEH-GWG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel Gorenstein entered a general
pre-trial management order as follows:
-- All pre-trial applications, including those relating to
scheduling
and discovery, shall be made to the undersigned (except motions
to
dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive
relief,
for summary judgment, or for class certification).
-- All applications must comply with this Court's Individual
Practices, which are available through the Clerk's Office or
at:
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-gabriel-w-gorenstein
-- All discovery (as well as requests for admissions) must be
initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all
discovery.
The New York State Education Department is the department of the
New York state government responsible for the supervision for all
public schools in New York and all standardized testing, as well as
the production and administration of state tests and Regents
Examinations.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eomKby at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEXT BRIDGE HYDROCARBONS: Targgart Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Todd Targgart, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Inc., Robert
L. Cook, Joseph DeWoody, Clifton Dubose, Jr, Lucas T. Hawkins,
Gregory McCabe, Delvina Oelkers, George Palikaras, Mia Pitts, Ken
Rice, Kristin Whitley, Case No. 1:24-cv-01927 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Aug.
12, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00767-P to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes for
Securities/Commodities/Exchange.
Next Bridge Hydrocarbons -- https://www.nextbridgehydrocarbons.com/
-- is an energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration,
exploitation and/or development of oil and natural gas
properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S Gianelli, Esq.
GIANELLI & MORRIS
12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 505
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (213) 489-1600
Fax: (213) 489-1611
Email: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert A Bragalone, Esq.
GORDON & REES LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 231-4660
Fax: (214) 461-4053
Email: bbragalone@gordonrees.com
NFI INTERACTIVE: Removes Jackson Suit to N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MARLON JACKSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, NFI INTERACTIVE LOGISTICS
LLC, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County of Grundy (Case No.
2024LA36) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on July 29, 2024, 2024.
The clerk of court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-06577. The case is assigned to Honorable Rebecca
R. Pallmeyer.
NFI Interactive Logistics, LLC provides logistics solutions. The
Company offers transportation management, warehousing,
distribution, ambient and temperature controlled storage,
intermodal, brokerage, online web tracking, and reporting services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
Paul T. Geske, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Dr. 9th FL
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
Email: aheldut@mcgpc.com
pgeske@mcgpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew Brian Murph, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 766-8897
Email: andrew.murphy@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Sophie Honey Gotlieb, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
320 South Canal Street Ste 3300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 569-1128
Email: sophie.gotlieb@faegredrinker.com
NYS ESSENTIAL: Aquilino Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Francis Aquilino, and others similarly situated v. NYS ESSENTIAL
POWER INC., SMART HOME ENERGY SOURCE LLC, and SEAN DEPTULA, Case
No. 2:24-cv-05199 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2024), is brought to recover
unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), retaliation for
complaining that he was not paid properly, and for failing to
provide wage notices and accurate wage statements under the New
York Wage Theft Protection Act.
The Plaintiff regularly worked 50 hours or more each workweek,
sometimes more, depending, for example, on how long it took to
return from the job site to the office, or whether there was a
meeting, regularly resulting in 10 or more hours of overtime each
workweek. The Plaintiff was non-exempt from overtime under the FLSA
and NYLL, performing manual work installing solar panels.
Notwithstanding that Plaintiff did not fall within any of the FLSA
or NYLL exemptions, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any sums for
the hours worked over 40 per workweek, including Defendants'
failure to pay Plaintiff straight time or the overtime premium of
time-and-a-half for all hours worked over 40 per workweek. The
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff overtime was willful and with
reckless disregard for Plaintiff's rights, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a Roofing Lead for both Corporate Defendants.
NYS Essential Power was and is a domestic corporation, with its
principal office located in Suffolk County, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley R. Siegel, Esq.
THE SIEGEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
591 Stewart Avenue, Suite 550
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 558-7559
OLDCASTLE INFRASTRUCTURE: Delgado Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Isaac Delgado and Raymond Ortiz, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and the general
public v. OLDCASTLE INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., a Washington corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0011312
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on July 25, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 1:24-at-00571.
The Plaintiff Delgado filed a Class Action Complaint asserting the
following eight Causes of Action: Failure to Provide Meal Periods;
Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and
Overtime; Failure to Pay Proper Vacation Wages; Failure to Provide
Accurate Written Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Final
Wages; Failure to Indemnify; and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Karin M. Cogbill, Esq.
Sean M. Bothamley, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
160 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 400
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: (408) 579-0404
Fax: (408) 454-0290
Email: Karin.Cogbill@jacksonlewis.com
Sean.Bothamley@jacksonlewis.com
OLLY PUBLIC BENEFIT: Tarvin Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sheri Tarvin, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situation and the general public v. OLLY PUBLIC
BENEFIT CORPORATION, Case No. 24STCV15715 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on July 24, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06261.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Olly "deceptively labels"
certain of its nutritional supplement products "by misrepresenting
the dosage amount." The Plaintiff claims that each of these
products' labels "advertise a certain dosage amount" as well as
"the number of gummies or softgels included" in the package, but
that because "consumers must ingest two or more gummies or softgels
to achieve the advertised dosage," "consumers grossly overpay for
the Products, receiving only half of the advertised value while
paying the full purchase price." Plaintiff alleges violations of
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), and False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and
asserts causes of action for breach of express and implied
warranties, negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation and fraud, and quasi-contract/unjust
enrichment.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Caleb H. Liang, Esq.
Sabrina C. Narain, Esq.
LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3950
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 612-8900
Facsimile: (213) 612-3773
Email: ltl-e-service@ltlattorneys.com
caleb.liang@ltlattorneys.com
sabrina.narain@ltlattorneys.com
OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Opendoor 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 1, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities class
suits in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona.
On October 7, 2022 and November 22, 2022, purported securities
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona, captioned Alich v. Opendoor
Technologies Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:22-cv-01717-JFM) ("Alich")
and Oakland County Voluntary Employee’s Beneficiary Association,
et al. v. Opendoor Technologies Inc., et al. (Case No.
2:22-cv-01987-GMS) ("Oakland County"), respectively.
The lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, captioned In
re Opendoor Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
2:22-CV-01717-MTL).
The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the Company,
Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. II (SCH"), certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters of a securities offering the Company made in February
2021.
The complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and
that the Company, SCH, certain officers and directors and the
underwriters violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, in each
case by making materially false or misleading statements related to
the effectiveness of the Company's pricing algorithm.
The plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act,
respectively, which provide for control person liability.
The complaint asserts claims on behalf of all persons and entities
that purchased, or otherwise acquired, Company common stock between
December 21, 2020 and November 3, 2022 or pursuant to offering
documents issued in connection with our business combination with
SCH and the secondary public offering conducted by the Company in
February 2021.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of interest and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other and
further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 30, 2023, which the
court granted on February 27, 2024 without prejudice.
On May 14, 2024, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of certain portions of the court's order dismissing
the complaint.
The court's orders on the motion to dismiss and motion for
reconsideration dismissed all Exchange Act claims and Securities
Act claims except for a portion of plaintiffs' claims brought under
Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act. Defendants filed
answers to the complaint on July 12, 2024.
The Company continues to believe that the allegations in the
complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself
in the matter.
Opendoor Technologies Inc. is a managed marketplace for
residential real estate that enables sellers and buyers of
residential real estate to experience a simple and certain
transactions.
PACKAGING EXCHANGE: Martin Files TCPA Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Packaging Exchange
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joseph Martin, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and aggrieved
v. Packaging Exchange Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Exploybridge,
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Real Time Staffing
Services, LLC dba Prologistix, a California Limited Liability
Company, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0009761 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Aug. 15, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Packaging Exchange -- https://www.packagingexchange.com/ -- is a
digital platform connecting buyers and sellers of packaging
materials.[BN]
PANERA LLC: Campbell Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panera, LLC. The case
is styled as Robyn Campbell, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Panera, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00575-CMR (E.D.
Mo., June 25, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Panera Bread -- https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/home.html -- is
an American chain of bakery-café fast casual restaurants with over
2,000 locations, all of which are in the United States and
Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 298-3283
Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel M. Kavouras, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP - Cleveland
Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114-1214
Phone: (216) 861-7099
Email: dkavouras@bakerlaw.com
PANERA LLC: Ramirez Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Selene Ramirez, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated v. PANERA, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0007855 was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 16, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02230-CKD.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following seven causes of
action on behalf of herself and a class of individuals she seeks to
represent: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Labor
Code; Failure to Pay all Wages and Minimum Wages in Violation of
Labor Code; Failure to Provide Complaint Meal Periods in Violation
of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Compliant Rest Breaks in
Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses in
Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Furnish Accurate, Itemized Wage
Statements in Violation of Labor Code and Failure to Maintain
Accurate Records and in Violation of Labor Code; and Violations of
Business & Processions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Marc P. Miles, Esq.
Laura M. Booth, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
Jamboree Center
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 475-1500
Fax: (949) 475-0016
Email: mmiles@shb.com
lbooth@shb.com
PARKING REVENUE: Brooks Sues Over Privacy Protection Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Samuel Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 3:24-cv-00823 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 13, 2024), is brought for
violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA") as a
result of the Defendant's obtaining the Plaintiff's personal
information without consent.
In violation of the DPPA, Defendant knowingly and without consent
obtained Plaintiff's and the Class Members' personal information,
including their names and home addresses, from non-public motor
vehicle state records, and used it to send parking tickets to
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' homes.
The Defendant's DPPA violations caused Plaintiff and the Class
Members harm, including violations of their statutory privacy
rights, harassment, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy,
and intrusion upon seclusion in a space that is personal and
private to Plaintiff and the Class Members.
The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and each member of the
proposed Class, statutory damages under the DPPA in the amount of
$2,500, reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs
reasonably incurred, and such other equitable relief as the court
determines appropriate, including injunctive relief in the form of
a prohibition on Defendants obtaining, using and disclosing
personal information obtained from any department of motor vehicles
("DMV") to send surprise tickets through the mail to consumers'
residences, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff parked his vehicle at a parking lot managed by
Defendant.
The Defendant manages private parking lots throughout Florida and
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraido, Esq.
HIRALDO PA.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.400.4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
PBF ENERGY: Answering Brief in Goldstein Suit Due September 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy 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 1, 2024, that the Company has until September
25, 2024 to submit the Goldstein class suit answering brief.
On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the Company and PBF LLC, and its subsidiaries,
PBF Energy Western Region LLC ("PBF Western Region") and Torrance
Refining Company LLC and the manager of our Torrance refinery along
with ExxonMobil were named as defendants in a class action and
representative action complaint.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.
The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to its acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in
the complaint.
To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion,
ExxonMobil retained responsibility for any liabilities that would
arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the
acquisition of the Torrance refinery.
On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination.
With the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs added
an additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef.
On October 15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited
classes of property owners with Youssef as the sole class
representative and named plaintiff, rejecting two other proposed
subclasses based on negligence and on strict liability for
ultrahazardous activities.
The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions.
On May 5, 2021, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint for the third time to substitute Navarro for Youssef.
On July 5, 2022, the Court issued a final order ruling that
plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Navarro as Class Representative
was denied and decertifying both of plaintiffs' proposed Air and
Ground Subclasses.
The order provided that the case will proceed with Navarro as the
sole plaintiff.
On September 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
On February 27, 2023, the Court issued an order granting our motion
for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's trespass
claim with prejudice and granted plaintiff leave to amend his
nuisance claims in conformity with the order if he can do so
consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
On March 27, 2023, plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint
relating to the remaining nuisance claims.
On May 23, 2023, the Court denied our motion to dismiss on the
pleadings for plaintiff’s failure to establish standing to bring
the nuisance claims.
After completing further discovery, on August 28, 2023, the Company
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
On October 18, 2023, the Court issued an order granting its motion,
adjudged that plaintiff take nothing, and that the action be
dismissed with prejudice.
The order also allows the Company to recover the costs of suit
pursuant to a bill of costs.
On October 30, 2023, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit regarding the Court's order granting summary
judgment.
The Court has granted plaintiff extensions of approximately 90 days
to file their opening brief, which they filed on May 27, 2024.
The Company's answering brief is due September 25, 2024.
The Company presently believes the outcome of this litigation will
not have a material impact on our financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.
PBF Energy Inc. is the sole managing member of PBF Energy Company
LLC, with a controlling interest in PBF LLC and its subsidiaries.
PBF LLC, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, owns and
operates oil refineries and related facilities in North America.
PBF LLC, together with its subsidiaries, owns an interest in an
equity method investment that owns and operates a biorefinery
co-located with the Chalmette refinery in Louisiana.
PBF ENERGY: Discovery in Piscitelli Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy 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 1, 2024, that discovery is ongoing for the
Piscitelli class suit.
On August 16, 2023, in Joseph Piscitelli and Lara Zanzucchi v.
Martinez Refining Company LLC, the Company's subsidiary MRC was
named as a defendant in a class action and representative action
complaint which contains allegations of public and private
nuisance, trespass, and negligence arising from MRC's operations.
MRC filed its answer to the complaint on October 31, 2023.
The initial Court hearing to discuss discovery issues was held on
January 2, 2024.
At the hearing, the Court raised the issue of mediation and
directed the parties to meet and confer and agree to stipulate to a
mediation deadline.
On January 9, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to
consider private mediation by September 20, 2024.
On January 17, 2024, the Court issued a scheduling order setting
the class certification hearing for April 10, 2025.
On April 4, 2024, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a First Amendment Complaint (the "Piscitelli FAC") to add
plaintiff Malan and dismiss plaintiff Zanzucchi, which plaintiffs
filed on April 10, 2024.
On the same day, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion. MRC filed
its answer to the Piscitelli FAC on April 23, 2024.
On May 3, 2024, the Court denied MRC's motion to relate this case
and the Cruz case (discussed below). On June 17, 2024, the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss plaintiff Piscitelli.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery.
The Company presently believes the outcome will not have a material
impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows.
PBF Energy Inc. is the sole managing member of PBF Energy Company
LLC, with a controlling interest in PBF LLC and its subsidiaries.
PBF LLC, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, owns and
operates oil refineries and related facilities in North America.
PBF LLC, together with its subsidiaries, owns an interest in an
equity method investment that owns and operates a biorefinery
co-located with the Chalmette refinery in Louisiana.
PDD HOLDINGS INC: Baxter Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Blake Baxter, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PDD HOLDINGS INC. F/K/A PINDUODUO INC., LEI CHEN, JING
MA, and JUN LIU, Case No. 1:24-cv-05653 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2024),
is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded PDD securities between April 30,
2021 and June 25, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and seeking
to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
During the Class Period, Defendants, individually and in concert,
directly or indirectly, disseminated or approved the false
statements, which they knew or deliberately disregarded were
misleading in that they contained misrepresentations and failed to
disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading.
The Defendants acted with scienter in that they knew that the
public documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name
of the Company were materially false and misleading; knew that such
statements or documents would be issued or disseminated to the
investing public; and knowingly and substantially participated, or
acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of such statements or
documents as primary violations of the securities laws. These
defendants by virtue of their receipt of information reflecting the
true facts of the Company, their control over, and/or receipt
and/or modification of the Company's allegedly materially
misleading statements, and/or their associations with the Company
which made them privy to confidential proprietary information
concerning the Company, participated in the fraudulent scheme
alleged herein.
As a result of the foregoing, the market price of the Company's
securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In
ignorance of the falsity of Defendants' statements, Plaintiff and
the other members of the Class relied on the statements described
above and/or the integrity of the market price of the Company's
securities during the Class Period in purchasing the Company's
securities at prices that were artificially inflated as a result of
Defendants' false and misleading statements.
Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware that
the market price of the Company's securities had been artificially
and falsely inflated by Defendants' misleading statements and by
the material adverse information which Defendants did not disclose,
they would not have purchased the Company's securities at the
artificially inflated prices that they did, or at all. As a result
of the wrongful conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff and other members
of the Class have suffered damages in an amount to be established
at trial, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased PDD securities during the Class Period and
was economically damaged thereby.
PDD purports to be "a multinational commerce group that owns and
operates a portfolio of businesses."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
PDD HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your PDD Holdings Inc. f/k/a Pinduoduo
Inc. (NASDAQ:PDD) investment and want to learn about a potential
recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below
for more information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/pdd-holdings-inc-f-k-a-pinduoduo-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=95902&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
PDD Holdings Inc. f/k/a Pinduoduo Inc. that seeks to recover losses
of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between April 30, 2021 and June 25, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (1) PDD's applications
contained malware, which was designed to obtain user data without
the user's consent, including reading private text messages; (2)
PDD has no meaningful system to prevent goods made by forced labor
from being sold on its platform, and has openly sold banned
products on its Temu platform; (3) the foregoing subjected the
Company to a heightened risk of legal and political scrutiny; and
(4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in PDD stock during the
relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/pdd-holdings-inc-f-k-a-pinduoduo-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=95902&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
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
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
PEABODY TWENTYMILE: Acheson Suit Removed to D. Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Acheson, individually and for others
similarly situated v. PEABODY TWENTYMILE MINING, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 2024CV030052 was removed from
the District Court of Routt County, Colorado, to the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado on Aug. 9, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02204.
The Plaintiff's Complaint specifically seeks to recover wages
allegedly owed for unpaid pre-shift and post-shift compensable
time; disallowed meal periods; and disallowed rest periods.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ashley W. Jordaan, Esq.
Owen M. Davis, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 749-7200
Fax: (303) 749-7272
Email: Ashley.Jordaan@huschblackwell.com
Owen.Davis@huschblackwell.com
- and -
Scott D. Meyers, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1500
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 480-1500
Fax: (314) 480-1505
Email: Scott.Meyers@huschblackwell.com
PEARL CORP INC: Sall Files TCPA Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pearl Corp, Inc. The
case is styled as Mataua Sall, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Pearl Corp, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0009788 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug.
15, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Pearl Corporation. was founded in 1967. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of men's and boys'
apparel and furnishings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Rothman, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Fax: 310-300-1705
Email: Jason@jlglawyers.com
PEGASO ENERGY: Long Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN LONG, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PEGASO ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, and JOHN COLE STOUT, Defendant, Case
No. 7:24-cv-00150 (W.D. Tex., July 2, 2024) arises under the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
asserts claims for breach of employment contract, viel percing
and/or alter-ego theories of vicarious liability, and for quantum
meruit.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a floor hand wherein he was
responsible for performing manual or technical labor to provide
Defendants' services to clients. The parties had a valid agreement
wherein Defendants would pay Plaintiff $26 per hour plus $150 per
diem for performing manual or technical labor to provide
Defendants' services to clients. The Plaintiff performed and
tendered performance of his obligations under this agreement by
continuing to work for Defendant for six weeks. However, the
Defendants breached the agreement by failing to pay Plaintiff any
wages at all, which injured, Plaintiff, says the suit.
Pegaso is an oil and gas company providing pump services,
completion rig services, well testing services and
automation/robotic services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Fernando M. Bustos, Esq.
Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq.
Brandon C. Callahan, Esq.
Benjamin E. Casey, Esq.
BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C.
P.O. Box 1980
Lubbock, TX 79408-1980
Telephone: (806) 780-3976
Facsimile: (806) 780-3800
E-mail: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com
mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com
bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com
bcasey@bustoslawfirm.com
PEPSICO INC: False Advertising Class Suit Can Proceed, Judge Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gennaro of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge will allow some false advertising claims to proceed in a
class action against PepsiCo from consumers who say the company
markets its Gatorade protein bars as healthy despite their high fat
and sugar content.
A single serving of a Gatorade protein bar exceeds daily limits for
added sugars recommended by the American Heart Association for
women and youth, the class plaintiffs said in their 2023 complaint
filed in federal court in California. It also approaches the
recommended limit for men, they said.
Because PepsiCo fails to clearly state recommended daily limits for
sugar like it does for fat and sodium, consumers are left in the
dark about these high sugar levels, the plaintiffs argue. They
claim PepsiCo's omissions violate multiple federal and state
statutes, including the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False
Advertising Law and the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, among
other FDA policies.
PepsiCo had moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, arguing that
they were preempted under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
The beverage giant argued its protein bars already comply with
federal labeling requirements and that a victory for the plaintiffs
would impose new and additional rules. The company also argued that
in pursuing both federal and state law claims, the plaintiffs
sought to "hold PepsiCo liable under state law for labeling sugar
content in the way that federal law requires."
Nonetheless, in a ruling this week, U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts
opted to allow some of the claims to survive.
"PepsiCo is correct that plaintiffs' claims are preempted to the
extent they challenge health or protein-content claims that are
consistent with federal regulations," the Joe Biden appointee wrote
in his 19-page order on Wednesday, August 14. At the same time, the
judge found that some of the plaintiffs' claims for false or
misleading advertising "cannot reasonably be construed as health or
nutrient-content claims" and therefore aren't preempted.
The protein bars' packaging included statements such as "protein to
help muscles rebuild," which might constitute a health claim, Pitts
wrote. But he noted that plaintiffs also relied on other statements
made on packaging, including that the bars were "backed by science"
and "used by the pros."
"These statements do not involve health or nutrient-content claims
regulated by the FDA, so federal law does not preempt plaintiffs'
state law claims premised thereon," Pitts wrote. Thus, he said, a
reasonable consumer could have plausibly been deceived by
"PepsiCo's marketing campaign and self-proclaimed science-backed
claims."
"Nothing more is required to avoid dismissal," Pitts added.
Still, Pitts denied injunctive relief to the plaintiffs, noting
that they did not face a risk of imminent harm that would be
remedied by an injunction. Although the packaging's sugar
disclosures "might be insufficient," he wrote, "plaintiffs can no
longer claim such ignorance" and "can avoid any future injury
simply by reviewing the bars' labels."
An attorney for the class plaintiffs declined to comment for this
story. PepsiCo did not respond to multiple requests by press time.
[GN]
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Foos Files Suit in D. New Mexico
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Permian Resources
Corp. The case is styled as Matthew E. Foos, Andrew A. Hund,
Michael B. Ackerman, Jarrod Johnson, Mackey and Sons, Inc., Patrick
Brown, Abraham Drucker, Steven Price, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Permian Resources Corp.
formerly known as: Centennial Resource Development, Inc.,
Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Continental Resources, Inc.,
Diamondback Energy, Inc., EOG Resources, Inc., Hess Corporation,
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Pioneer Natural Resources
Company, Exxon Mobil Corporation formerly known as: Pioneer Natural
Resources Company, Case No. 1:24-md-03119-MLG-LF (D.N.M., Aug. 15,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Acadian Ambulance -- https://acadianambulance.com/ -- is an
employee-owner private ambulance service that covers most of the
state of Louisiana, a large portion of Texas, two counties in
Tennessee, and one county in Mississippi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon Christopher Landt, Esq.
SHARP LAW LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Phone: (972) 998-8825
Fax: (913) 261-7564
Email: blandt@midwest-law.com
- and -
Christopher A. Dodd, Esq.
DODD LAW OFFICE, LLC
500 Marquette Avenue NW, Suite 1330
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Phone: (505) 475-2742
Email: chris@doddnm.com
- and -
Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (469) 904-4550
Fax: (469) 444-5002
Email: dcharest@burnscharest.com
wburns@burnscharest.com
- and -
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Ste 1170
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 799-2845
Email: knelson@burnscharest.com
PET PROS LLC: Wellington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PET PROS LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Tamra Wellington, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. PET PROS LLC, et al., Case No.
24CV015995 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 12, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
PET PROS LLC -- https://petpros.net/ -- offer high-quality dog &
cat food, supplies, toys, treats & supplements to keep the pet
happy & healthy.[BN]
PIXI INC: Kelly Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
----------------------------------------------------
Brian Kelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Pixi, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-05635 (E.D.N.Y., August 12, 2024) arises from Defendant's
alleged misrepresentation on the labels of its Pixi "Collagen"
cosmetics that they contain collagen.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other consumers, however, these
products do not contain Collagen at all. Instead, they use a fake
imitation of collagen derived from a synthetic extract of the bark
and stems of the Acacia seyal tree, says the suit.
Pixi, Inc. manufactures, distributes, and sells cosmetics, make-up
and skincare products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq.
Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq.
140 Broadway, Suite 4667 New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
ben@gr-firm.com nsari@gr-firm.com
PMC HOME & AUTO: Grochowski Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PMC Home & Auto
Insurance Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Alan Grochowski, Gene
Thrower, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PMC Home & Auto Insurance Agency, LLC d/b/a Protect My
Car, Case No. 2:24-cv-14264-XXXX (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
PMC Home & Auto Insurance Agency, LLC -- https://pmcinsurance.com/
-- provides extended warranty products for vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mohammad Reza Kazerouni, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave, D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (949) 612-9999
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: mike@kazlg.com
PRINCESS CRUISES: Remove Searle Suit to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of TAMMY SEARLE; and LA SHAUN
DIXON-RUSHING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PRINCESS CRUISES, Defendant, filed a notice
to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 23STCV02205) to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June
26, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-06345-CBM-AS.
The case is assigned to Judge Consuelo B Marshall and referred to
Magistrate Alka Sagar.
Princess Cruises operates as a sports, amusement, and recreation
services. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacob Heath, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
Telephone: (650) 614-7400
Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
Email: jheath@orrick.com
PRISMA HEALTH MEDICAL: Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jane Doe by and through her next friend and
natural parent N.O.; M.F. by and through her next friend, Ashley
Berry, Esq., B.D.H., B.J.H., and W.H. by and through their next
friends, Shelia Hart and James Hart, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated children v. Prisma Health Medical
Group, Midlands Family and Child Advocacy Clinic, Olga Rosa, M.D.,
Shelby Brady, FNP-C, Jennifer Leigh Sabo, M.D., Ladonna Alexandria
Young, M.D., and Susan Michelle Lamb, M.D., Case No.
2024-CP-40-02999 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, County
of Richland, State of South Carolina, to the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina on July 25, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-04141-JDA.
The Plaintiffs brought the action in the Court of Common Pleas,
County of Richland, seeking injunctive relief and damages for
alleged violations of Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights.
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege violations under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 and the United States and South Carolina Constitutions.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel C. Plyler, Esq.
Tina Cundari, Esq.
Austin T. Reed, Esq.
Rachel E. Lee, Esq.
SMITH | ROBINSON
3200 Devine Street
Columbia, SC 29205
Phone: 803-254-5445
Fax: 803-254-5007
Email: Daniel.Plyler@smithrobinsonlaw.com
Tina.Cundari@smithrobinsonlaw.com
Austin.Reed@smithrobinsonlaw.com
Rachel.Lee@smithrobinsonlaw.com
- and -
G. Murrell Smith, Jr., Esq.
SMITH | ROBINSON
Post Office Box 580
Sumter, SC 29151
Phone: 803-778-2471
Email: Murrell@smithrobinsonlaw.com
PROUD MOMENTS: Malkin Suit Seeks to Modify Schedule
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Malkin v. Proud Moments
Licensed Behavior Analysts, PLLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-04834-ENV-ST
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
setting scheduling modifications to allow the Plaintiff and the
class members to have their claims litigated in a Court of law.
The Plaintiff Malkin rites to request an extension of case
deadlines in light of Plaintiff's agreement with the Defendant to
postpone further class discovery and class certification motion
practice pending mediation as Defendant previously agreed.
The Parties agreed on multiple occasions, both in writing and over
the phone back on Oct. 18, 2024, to postpone prosecuting this case
(including, but not limited to, class discovery and class
certification) pending the completion of mediation at Defendant's
request.
As a result, Plaintiff has been operating in good faith to postpone
prosecuting her case (including, but not limited to, class
discovery and class certification) pending the completion of
mediation under the parties' express agreement, which was requested
by Defendant (and for Defendant's benefit).
The reasoning for Plaintiff missing court deadlines is excused
based on neglect and aligns with Pioneer and other federal cases.
The parties were determined to reach an amicable solution and
settle this matter. As a result, they expressly agreed to postpone
all class discovery and class certification issues pending the
completion of mediation.
Proud Moments offers therapies for children with autism.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SDwkBM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Valles, Esq.
VALLES LAW
4104 Highland Ave
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-3030
Telephone: (415) 234-0065
E-mail: dan@valles.law
QUIDELORTHO CORP: Faces Bristol County Retirement System Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
QuidelOrtho Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 1, 2024, that the Company faces the
Bristol County Retirement System class suit.
On April 12, 2024, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint under the federal securities laws
against the Company and three of its current and former executives.
The complaint, which is captioned Bristol County Retirement System
v. QuidelOrtho Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02804-MKV
(S.D.N.Y.) (the "Bristol County Complaint"), asserts claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to statements regarding sales
of the Company's COVID-19 diagnostic tests and the 510(k)
submission for its Savanna RVP4 assay.
The Bristol County Complaint seeks a judgment determining that the
lawsuit can be maintained as a class action and awarding the
plaintiff and putative class damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and costs.
QuidelOrtho Corporation, formerly known as Quidel Corporation, is a
manufacturer of diagnostic healthcare products, headquartered in
California. [BN]
RADEPA ENTERPRISES: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Properties
------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Maurer, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf
of all other similarly situated v. RADEPA ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., a
New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-08021
(D.N.J., July 25, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, damages,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination ("LAD").
The Defendant's property is a fast-food restaurant, known as Burger
King #13012, located at 912 W. Bay Avenue, Barnegat, New Jersey
08005 (the "Property" or "Burger King"). The Plaintiff has visited
the Property on several occasions both as a patron and to inspect
the Property; his last visit as a patron occurred on or about July
9, 2024. He purchased lunch when he was in the process of
conducting inspections at other properties in the surrounding area.
The Plaintiff found that the Property was littered with violations
of the ADA, both in architecture and in policy.
The Plaintiff personally encountered exposure to architectural
barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his
safety during his visits to the Property. The ADA has been law for
over 30 years and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the
Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that
he will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the
Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has multiple sclerosis and therefore has a physical
impairment that substantially limits many of his major life
activities.
RADEPA ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., owns or operates a place of public
accommodation, in this instance a fast-food restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
SHADINGER LAW, LLC
717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
Vineland, NJ 08360
Phone: (609) 319-5399
Email: js@shadingerlaw.com
RALEY'S ARIZONA: Kristapher Privacy Suit Removed to D. Ariz.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RENAY KRISTAPHER, individually, and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RALEY’S ARIZONA, LLC d/b/a
BASHAS', Defendant, Case No. CV2024-016216, was removed from the
Maricopa County Superior Court, State of Arizona, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona on August 12, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Arizona assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-02037-MTM to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of Arizona's
Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act in
connection with its use of tracking pixels in its marketing
emails.
Raley's operates 112 grocery stores that operate under various
names, two of which are Bashas' and Bashas' Diné Market, and all
of which are located in Arizona with the exception of two locations
in New Mexico. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory J. Marshall, Esq.
Emily R. Parker, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
One East Washington Street Suite 2700
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2556
Telephone: (602) 382-6000
Facsimile: (602) 382-6070
RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Class Settlement in Owen Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Owen v. Reconnaissance
Energy Africa Ltd. et al. (RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY AFRICA LTD.
SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 1:21-cv-06176-NRM-RML (E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Nina Morrison entered an order preliminarily
approving settlement and providing for notice:
1. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes – Pursuant to
Rule
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the
proposed U.S. Settlement, a U.S. Settlement Class consisting
of:
"all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired
publicly traded ReconAfrica Securities on the U.S. OTC
market,
between Feb. 28, 2019 and Sept. 7, 2021, both dates
inclusive,
and were damaged thereby.
Excluded from the U.S. Settlement Class are: (a) persons who
suffered no compensable losses; and (b)(i) Defendants; (ii)
any
person who served as a partner, control person, officer
and/or
director of ReconAfrica and/or its predecessor Lund
Enterprises
Corp. during the U.S. Settlement Class Period, and members of
their Immediate Families; (iii) present and former parents,
subsidiaries, assigns, successors, affiliates, and
predecessors
of ReconAfrica and/or Lund; (iv) any entity in which the
Defendants have or had a controlling interest; (v) any trust
of
which an Individual Defendant is the settler or which is for
the
benefit of an Individual Defendant and/or member(s) of their
Immediate Families; (vi) Defendants' liability insurance
carriers; and (vii) the legal representatives, heirs,
successors, predecessors, and assigns of any person or entity
excluded under provisions (i) through (vi) hereof.
Also excluded from the U.S. Settlement Class are any persons
and
entities who or which submit a request for exclusion from the
U.S. Settlement Class that is accepted by the U.S. Court.
For the avoidance of doubt: (a) "affiliates" are persons or
entities that directly, or indirectly through one or more
intermediaries, control, are controlled by or are under common
control with one of the Defendants; and (b) while investors that
purchased ReconAfrica Securities exclusively on the TSXV or
Frankfurt markets are excluded from the U.S. Settlement Class,
investors that purchased ReconAfrica Securities on the TSXV or
Frankfurt markets in addition to the U.S. OTC market may be members
of the U.S. Settlement Class; provided, however, ReconAfrica
Securities purchased on the TSXV or Frankfurt markets may only be
compensated from the Canadian Settlement Fund and are not eligible
for compensation from the U.S. Settlement Fund
The Court hereby finds and concludes that pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the purposes of the
U.S. Settlement only, U.S. Lead Plaintiff Robert Partovy is an
adequate class representative and certifies him as the Class
Representative for the U.S. Settlement Class. The Court also
appoints U.S. Lead Counsel as Class Counsel for the U.S. Settlement
Class, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The Court hereby preliminarily approves the U.S. Settlement, as
embodied in the Stipulation, as being fair, reasonable and adequate
to the U.S. Settlement Class, subject to further consideration at
the U.S. Settlement Hearing to be conducted as described below.
The Court will hold a settlement hearing (the "U.S. Settlement
Hearing") on Dec. 19, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6E North of
the United States Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY
11201
Reconnaissance Energy is a Canadian oil & gas exploration company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H0rxzG at no extra
charge.[CC]
RETSEL CORPORATION: Seeks to Ensure Focus Remains on Claims in NDN
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NDN Collective, et al., v.
Retsel Corporation, et al., NDN COLLECTIVE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, SUNNY RED BEAR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
GEORGE BETTELYOUN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. RETSEL CORPORATION, d/b/a GRAND GATEWAY
HOTEL and d/b/a CHEERS SPORTS LOUNGE AND CASINO, CONNIE UHRE, and
NICHOLAS UHRE, Case No. 5:22-cv-05027-LLP (D.S.D.), the Defendants
ask the Court granting motions in Limine to ensure that the focus
remains on the claims properly at issue rather than collateral
matters that do not support a verdict.
At its core, this case is about whether Defendants discriminated
against Plaintiffs on three distinct instances and whether
Plaintiffs committed torts during their response to the perceived
discrimination. The evidence must be limited to that which is
relevant to these questions and is otherwise admissible under the
Federal Rules of Evidence.
Given the high-profile nature of the incidents giving rise to this
case and the expansive discovery permitted under the Rules, the
parties have collected thousands of documents, including
communications, which have no bearing on the issues the jury is
going to decide.
The Court should therefore play an active role in controlling the
presentation of evidence so that the jury’s verdict is based on
appropriate evidence only and not on a general dislike for any
party.
Based on the discovery and briefing to date, it appears Plaintiffs
plan to distract the jury by introducing irrelevant, unfairly
prejudicial, and improper evidence in the hope of securing a
verdict on an emotional basis.
The Plaintiff Bettelyoun alleges that the Defendants discriminated
against him when they declined to rent a room to his sister in June
2020 and asked him to leave.
The Defendants aver that Bettelyoun was asked to leave because he
was rude and condescending, and not because he is Native American.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Je6oj3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Haylee M. Culver, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
3523 45th Street South, Suite 100
Fargo, North Dakota 58104
Telephone: 701-300-3449
E-mail: hculver@grsm.com
- and -
Heather E. Stern, Esq.
MESSNER REEVES LLP
611 Anton Blvd., Suite 450
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (949) 612-9128
E-mail: hstern@messner.com
ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Ventling Files Suit in D. Wyoming
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roundpoint Mortgage
Servicing LLC. The case is styled as Gary Ventling, in his own
right and as representative of a class of persons similarly
situated v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00158-SWS (D. Wyo., Aug. 16, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Real Estate
Procedures Settlement Act.
RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing LLC --
https://www.roundpointmortgage.com/ -- is a non-bank mortgage
servicing company founded in 2007.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin K. Kessner, Esq.
YONKEE & TONER
319 West Dow Street
P O Box 6288
Sheridan, WY 82801
Phone: (307) 674-7451
Fax: (307) 672-6250
Email: kkessner@yonkeetoner.com
RTS HOLDINGS: Smith Class Action Suit Filed in Cal. Super.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against RTS Holdings LLC, captioned
as EARNEST LEE SMITH JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RTS HOLDINGS LLC Doing Business As
ROADONE INTERMODALOGISTICS, Defendant, Case No. VCU311278 (Cal.
Super., Tulare Cty., July 22, 2024).
RTS Holdings, LLC operates as a holding company. The Company is
located in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
James Hawkins APLC
9880 Research Dr Ste 200
Irvine, CA 92618-4342
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
RUSHMORE LOAN: O'Brien Seeks to Certify Connecticut Citizens Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK E. O'BRIEN, v.
RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC et al. Case No.
3:23-cv-01369-MPS (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying as a class of:
"all Connecticut citizens who have lost their homes to
foreclosure
involving the misconduct of Defendants."
In the alternative, granting leave for the time necessary for other
requisite aspects of a class-action to be put into play, the
Plaintiff says.
Central to the Plaintiff's suit is the claim that thousands of
Connecticut citizens were deprived of their homes through
fraudulent foreclosure proceedings where U.S. Bank, N.A. posed as
Plaintiff. U.S. Bank, N.A. -- by its own admission -- has no stake
in the subject mortgages, and consequently cannot be Plaintiff.
The Defendants in this case participated in a criminal enterprise.
The reason for the request of this Court is that the proposed class
Plaintiffs are poor people deprived of their homes by a
far-reaching criminal enterprise know as Lone Star Funds, a
Defendant in this action. Prospective members of the class that the
Plaintiff seeks to certify have no money for lawyers, nor are many
of them tutored in the law.
Simply stated, they were fair game to the foreclosure machinery
that took-away their homes to the exclusion of due process. The
Plaintiff goes on record that he believes class certification is in
order, and asks leave of the Court to iron-out the technicalities.
Plaintiff is licensed in several Federal jurisdictions.
Rushmore Loan is a multi-faceted residential mortgage servicer.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rWbfyu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark E. O'Brien, Esq.
114 Wetmore Avenue
Winsted, CT 06098
Telephone: (959) 229.8765
RXO LAST: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Gonzalez Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON GONZALEZ, VICTOR
RODRIGUEZ ORTIZ, and ADDELYN MARTE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. RXO LAST MILE, INC., d/b/a RXO
LOGISTICS, Case No. 1:19-cv-10290-FDS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge F.
Dennis Saylor IV entered an order denying
(1) the motion for summary judgment of defendant RXO, and
(2) the motion for partial summary judgment of the Plaintiffs
Ramon
Gonzalez, Victor Rodriguez Ortiz, and Addelyn Marte, on
behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated.
In summary, many of the relevant facts as to each factor are
genuinely disputed. Resolving all doubts in favor of the plaintiff
as the non-moving party, and construing the evidence in the light
most favorable to it, the question of whether RXO was the joint
employer of the drivers cannot be resolved by summary judgment.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment will therefore be denied.
Therefore, the Court will not grant summary judgment to plaintiff
on the basis that RXO undertook an end run around its wage-law
obligations.
In short, partial summary judgment will not be granted to plaintiff
on the grounds that RXO is their joint employer or that RXO engaged
in a scheme to avoid its wage-law obligations.
This is an action for unpaid wages arising out of the alleged
misclassification of employees as independent contractors.
Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.
The Plaintiffs allege that RXO:
-- misclassified them as independent contractors in violation of
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, section 148B (Count 1);
-- failed to provide them wages and benefits in violation of the
Massachusetts Wage Act (Count 2);
-- failed to pay them a minimum wage in violation of the
Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law (Count 3); and
-- was unjustly enriched at their expense (Count 4).
The Plaintiffs brought suit on behalf of themselves and a class of
similarly situated individuals against RXO.
RXO is a freight forwarder and logistics services provider that
organizes and arranges deliveries of large goods for retail
stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RqcQ1n at no extra
charge.[CC]
SALVATION ARMY: Van Horn's Bid to Alter Judgment Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER A. VAN HORN,
v. SALVATION ARMY, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02009-DDC-ADM (D.
Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Crabtree entered an order:
-- denying the Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment;
and
-- granting Plaintiff's motion of the Plaintiff for leave to
exceed
Page Limitations for previously filed motion to alter or amend
the
Judgment.
The Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment fails because
it doesn't explain that new evidence exists, which became available
only after the court had entered judgment, it doesn't explain why
the Plaintiff failed to introduce the evidence timely, and it
provides no other valid reason to amend the Order.
The court thus stands by its decision granting defendants' Motions
to Dismiss. And it denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend
the Judgment.
On March 25, 2024, the court issued an Order granting Salvation
Army Defendants' and Mission Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Pro se
plaintiff Christopher Van Horn since has filed a Motion to Alter or
Amend the Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
He contends that the court should consider new
evidence—specifically, his appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court in
his state court criminal case. Mission Defendants and Salvation
Army Defendants oppose plaintiff's motion.
In January 2022, City of Mission police officers arrested plaintiff
for criminal trespassing and disorderly conduct after plaintiff
refused to don a face mask while shopping in a Salvation
Army store.
In January 202 -- —along with his state convictions and
appeals—plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Salvation Army
Defendants and Mission Defendants.
Salvation Army is a Protestant Christian church and an
international charitable organization.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rmS9E2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SANYO FOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Shin Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sue Shin v. Sanyo Foods
Corp. of America, Case No. 2:23-cv-10485-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Stephen Wilson entered an order granting in part and
denying in part defendant's motion to dismiss:
-- Many of Defendants' arguments are rejected as obviously
contrary
to established law. However, the Court agrees with Defendants
that
Plaintiff's California's False and Misleading Advertising Law
("FAL") and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA")
claims are time barred; the Court also observes that
Plaintiff's
unjust enrichment claim is time barred.
-- The Court therefore dismisses those claims.
-- The Court also dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Takeo Sato.
Lastly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's UCL claim because the
Plaintiff concedes that this Court has no equitable
jurisdiction
over it.
-- The Plaintiff's surviving claims include those for fraudulent
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
express
warranty, and breach of implied warranty. The Plaintiff is
ordered
to file her motion for class certification within 75 days.
-- In December 2019, the Plaintiff came to believe that Sanyo
Food's
products contained "more than 0g but less than .5g of trans
fat.
The Plaintiff further alleges that, in November 2022, Defendants
"knew and should have known" via laboratory testing that Sanyo
Foods' products contain more than zero grams of trans fat per
serving. In making this allegation, the Plaintiff refers to a test
conducted by Sanyo Foods in October 2022.
On Aug. 17, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against
Sanyo Foods, which she amended on Dec. 12, 2022.
Sanyo Foods manufactures and sells Sapporo Ichiban packaged noodle
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AMuIab at no extra
charge.[CC]
SCANIA AG: Deadline for Class Registration Extended to Mid-October
------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Reclaim is suing Scania in partnership with the industry
associations AMo (Bundesverband Mobelspedition), BGL (Bundesverband
Güterkraftverkehr Logistik und Entsorgung), BWVL (Bundesverband
Wirtschaft, Verkehr und Logistik), and DSLV (Bundesverband
Spedition und Logistik).
Since April 2024, customers of the brands involved in the truck
cartel have been able to join the new class action against Scania.
Initially, the partners planned to close registration at the end of
August. However, the deadline has been extended until mid-October
2024.
Costs: success fee
Truck Reclaim is offering all companies that have not yet pursued
legal action in the truck cartel case -- and have purchased one of
the implicated vehicles -- the opportunity to join the lawsuit at
no upfront cost. Companies will only be required to pay a
commission of 33% of the awarded claims if the lawsuit is
successful. For members of the involved associations, this fee is
reduced to 28% of the damages.
Criteria for registration
Trucks can be registered with Truck Reclaim if they meet the
following criteria:
-- Brand: MAN, Daimler, Volvo/Renault, DAF, Iveco, and Scania
-- Procurement Type: Purchase, hire purchase, or leasing (rented
trucks are not eligible)
-- Procurement Period: Between 17 January 1997 and 31 December
2016
-- Utilisation: Only newly procured trucks used by your company or
within your group of companies are eligible
-- Weight: Medium-duty trucks (6 to 16 tonnes) and heavy-duty
trucks (over 16 tonnes)
Truck Reclaim advises that prompt action is necessary, as the first
claims against Scania may begin to expire within the next few
months.
Class Action Registration
Companies that have not yet filed claims against the truck cartel
have until 15 October 2024 to register on the Truck Reclaim website
at www.truckreclaim.com. [GN]
SECOND NATURE: Court to Set Class Certification Briefing Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEST, et al., v. SECOND
NATURE BRANDS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01799 (D.D.C., Filed
June 21, 2024), the Hon. Judge entered an order on motion for
briefing schedule.
If necessary, the Court will set any deadlines for class
certification briefing at a later date.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property damage.
The Defendant manufactures snack products.[CC]
SHADY GROVE: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information
---------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, Jane Doe II individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SHADY GROVE REPRODUCTIVE SCIENCE CENTER,
P.C., Case No. 8:24-cv-02368 (D. Md., Aug. 14, 2024), is brought
against the Defendant's disclosure of this information without
consent constitutes an extreme invasion of Plaintiffs' and Class
members' privacy.
The Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably expected that their
communications with SGF through the SGF Webpages would remain
private. Indeed, SGF confirms and reinforces the reasonableness of
this expectation in their Notice of Privacy Practices. In this
policy, SGF defines "Protected Health Information" and "PHI" to
mean all "information, including demographic information, that may
identify you and that relates to your past, present or future
physical or mental health or condition and related health care
services." Absent limited circumstances described in that policy
(none of which apply here), SGF promises it will "maintain the
confidentiality of Plaintiffs' and Class members' protected health
information" and will "not use or disclose your PHI for purposes
not described in this Notice unless you give us written
authorization to do so (including via electronic signature)."
The Plaintiffs and Class members' communications with SGF through
the SGF Website to make an appointment, contact SGF, find a doctor,
and find a location, are private and should not have been used or
disclosed without their written authorization because they are
communications that reveal information that identifies Plaintiffs
and Class members, as well as their health information, such as
patient status.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Class members, and despite these
clear representations, SGF knowingly and intentionally disclosed
their private communications on the SGF webpages to third parties,
including to Google LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., and Microsoft Corp.
SGF did so by incorporating third party analytics and advertising
tracking software on the SGF Webpages, which immediately cause the
communications on those webpages to be transmitted to those third
parties. These communications were not aggregated or deidentified,
nor were third parties, like Google, Meta, and Microsoft,
prohibited in any way from using these communications for their own
benefit, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are SGF patients who used the SGF Website.
SGF is a physician practice group specializing in fertility
services, including fertility testing, Intrauterine Insemination
(IUI), In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), preimplantation genetic
testing, and egg freezing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Pettigrew, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 233-4565
Email: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Anjori Mitra, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 223-6444
Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
amitra@scott-scott.com
- and -
Christian Levis, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
SHERATON OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stinar Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA STINAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHERATON OPERATING LLC; DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 24STCV18777 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., July 26, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals
and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Stinar was employed by the Defendants as guest service
representative.
Sheraton Operating LLC business includes operating public hotels
and motels. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
Hilary Silvia, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
hilary@koullaw
- and -
Sahag Majarian, Esq.
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
Email: sahagii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
SIEMENS CORPORATION: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Shannon Spencer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SIEMENS CORPORATION, a foreign
profit corporation; SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., a foreign profit
corporation; SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC., a foreign profit
corporation; SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA, INC., a foreign profit
corporation; SIEMENS ADVANTA SOLUTIONS CORP., a foreign profit
corporation; SIEMENS ENERGY DEMAG DELAVAL TURBOMACHINERY, INC., a
foreign profit corporation; SIEMENS ENERGY GENERATION SERVICES
COMPANY, a foreign profit corporation; SIEMENS ENERGY STAFFING,
INC., a foreign profit corporation; SIEMENS ENERGY, INC., a foreign
profit corporation; SIEMENS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a foreign
profit corporation; SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY, INC., a
foreign profit corporation; SIEMENS GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC, a
foreign profit corporation; SIEMENS HEALTHCARE DIAGNOSTICS INC., a
foreign profit corporation; SIEMENS LOGISTICS LLC, a foreign
limited liability company; SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC., a, foreign
profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington
entities, Case No. 24-2-15730-1-SEA was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington on
Aug. 16, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01265.
The Plaintiff alleges that the "Defendants," in an unspecified and
undifferentiated manner, violated RCW 49.58.110 by failing to post
the wage scale or salary range for a "Field Service Technician"
position in Seattle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 442-9106
Fax: (206) 441-9711
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jessica M. Andrade, Esq.
POLSINELLI PC
1000 Second Ave., Suite 3500
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 393-5400
Facsimile: (206) 393-5401
Email: jessica.andrade@polsinelli.com
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Balmores Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Balmores class suit in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.
On June 21, 2024, Cindy Balmores, Justin Braswell, Deborah Garvin,
and Thea Anderson, individually, as private attorneys general, and
on behalf of all other Washington persons similarly situated, filed
a class action complaint against Sirius XM in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Sirius XM believes it has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in the action and arbitration, and it intends to defend
the action vigorously.
SiriusXM features music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news,
traffic and weather channels and other content, as well as podcasts
and infotainment services, in the United States on a subscription
fee basis. It packages include live, curated and certain exclusive
and on demand programming. The SiriusXM service is distributed
through our two proprietary satellite radio systems and streamed
via applications for mobile devices, home devices and other
consumer electronic equipment.
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Carovillano Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Carovillano class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On June 5, 2023, Christopher Carovillano and Steven Brandt,
individually, as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all
other U.S. persons similarly situated (excluding persons in the
states of California, New Jersey and Washington), filed a class
action complaint against Sirius XM in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
On February 6, 2024, the Court issued an Order denying Sirius XM's
Motion to Dismiss and Sirius XM filed an Answer to the complaint on
February 20, 2024.
On May 24, 2024, Sirius XM filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment and to Strike Class Allegations. On July 18, 2024, the
Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Sirius XM’s motion for
partial summary judgment and striking the plaintiffs' class
allegations.
This case is now expected to proceed solely as to plaintiffs'
individual claims.
Sirius XM believes it has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in the action and arbitration, and it intends to defend
the action vigorously.
SiriusXM features music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news,
traffic and weather channels and other content, as well as podcasts
and infotainment services, in the United States on a subscription
fee basis. It packages include live, curated and certain exclusive
and on demand programming. The SiriusXM service is distributed
through our two proprietary satellite radio systems and streamed
via applications for mobile devices, home devices and other
consumer electronic equipment.
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Kirkpatrick Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Kirkpatrick class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon.
On June 14, 2024, Kara Kirkpatrick, Gillian Maxfield, Anna Demarco
and Cody Michael, individually and on behalf of all other Oregon
persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
Sirius XM in the United States District Court for the District of
Oregon.
Sirius XM believes it has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in the action and arbitration, and it intends to defend
the action vigorously.
SiriusXM features music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news,
traffic and weather channels and other content, as well as podcasts
and infotainment services, in the United States on a subscription
fee basis. It packages include live, curated and certain exclusive
and on demand programming. The SiriusXM service is distributed
through our two proprietary satellite radio systems and streamed
via applications for mobile devices, home devices and other
consumer electronic equipment.
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Posternock Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Posternock class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On May 17, 2023, Robyn Posternock, Muriel Salters and Philip
Munning, individually, as private attorneys general, and on behalf
of all other New Jersey persons similarly situated, filed a class
action complaint against Sirius XM in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
Sirius XM filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on August 18, 2023.
Sirius XM renewed that motion on June 14, 2024 and the renewed
motion remains pending.
Sirius XM believes it has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in the action and arbitration, and it intends to defend
the action vigorously.
SiriusXM features music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news,
traffic and weather channels and other content, as well as podcasts
and infotainment services, in the United States on a subscription
fee basis. It packages include live, curated and certain exclusive
and on demand programming. The SiriusXM service is distributed
through our two proprietary satellite radio systems and streamed
via applications for mobile devices, home devices and other
consumer electronic equipment.
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Stevenson Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Stevenson class suit in United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
On April 14, 2023, Ayana Stevenson and David Ambrose, individually,
as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all other California
persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
Sirius XM in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Contra Costa.
The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, which issued an Order on November
9, 2023 granting Sirius XM's Motion to Compel Arbitration and
dismissed the complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed the Court's granting of the Motion, and Sirius
XM cross-appealed the Court's dismissal in lieu of the issuance of
a stay pending arbitration.
The appeal and cross-appeal have been dismissed leaving the
District Court's order compelling arbitration in place.
Sirius XM believes it has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in the action and arbitration, and it intends to defend
the action vigorously.
SiriusXM features music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news,
traffic and weather channels and other content, as well as podcasts
and infotainment services, in the United States on a subscription
fee basis. It packages include live, curated and certain exclusive
and on demand programming. The SiriusXM service is distributed
through our two proprietary satellite radio systems and streamed
via applications for mobile devices, home devices and other
consumer electronic equipment.
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Woods Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Woods class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
On June 25, 2024, Denise Woods and Sherry Tapia, individually, as
private attorneys general, and on behalf of all other California
persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
Sirius XM in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
On July 3, 2024, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to
relate this case to the earlier filed Stevenson case.
Sirius XM believes it has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in the action and arbitration, and it intends to defend
the action vigorously.
SiriusXM features music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news,
traffic and weather channels and other content, as well as podcasts
and infotainment services, in the United States on a subscription
fee basis. It packages include live, curated and certain exclusive
and on demand programming. The SiriusXM service is distributed
through our two proprietary satellite radio systems and streamed
via applications for mobile devices, home devices and other
consumer electronic equipment.
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS: Faces Wilson Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings 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 1, 2024, that the Company faces the
Wilson class suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
On June 26, 2024, Bonnie Wilson, individually and on behalf of all
other U.S. persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint against Sirius XM in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
SiriusXM features music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news,
traffic and weather channels and other content, as well as podcasts
and infotainment services, in the United States on a subscription
fee basis. It packages include live, curated and certain exclusive
and on demand programming. The SiriusXM service is distributed
through our two proprietary satellite radio systems and streamed
via applications for mobile devices, home devices and other
consumer electronic equipment.
SKYWAY CONCESSION: Rowe Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rockwell Rowe, Jr. and Michele Rowe, on behalf
of themselves, and all others similarly situated v. SKYWAY
CONCESSION COMPANY LLC, CALUMET CONCESSION PARTNERS INC., ATLAS
ARTERIA, and ONTARIO TEACHERS' PENSION PLAN, Case No. 2024 CH 05712
was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County
Department, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on July 24, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06313.
The Plaintiffs bring four claims. Count I is for alleged "deceptive
acts" in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act ("ICFA"). Count II is for alleged "unfair
practices" in violation of ICFA. Count III is for alleged breach of
the Agreement. Count IV is for unjust enrichment.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq.
Matthew G. Norgard, Esq.
KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1006
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 606-0500
Email: ken@krislovlaw.com
mnorgard@krislovlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
William P. Ziegelmueller, Esq.
Paula M. Ketcham, Esq.
Mir Y. Ali, Esq.
Aphrodite Kokolis, Esq.
Meera Gorjala, Esq.
ArentFox Schiff LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 258-5500
Fax: (312) 258-5600
Email: bill.ziegelmueller@afslaw.com
paula.ketcham@afslaw.com
mir.ali@afslaw.com
dede.kokolis@afslaw.com
meera.gorjala@afslaw.com
SOGNO TOURS LLC: Naranjo Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sogno Tours LLC. The
case is styled as Stephania Naranjo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sogno Tours LLC doing business as:
Vacation VIP, Case No. 1:24-cv-23098-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 14,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Sogno Tours LLC doing business as VacationVIP.com --
https://www.vacationvip.com/ -- works with some of the industry's
best resorts to bring unparalleled value to our customers through
our unique promotions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 Ne 1st Ave, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
STABILITY AI: Artists May Pursue AI Copyright Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Whiddington of ArtNet reports that artists have won a small
victory in a potentially landmark artificial intelligence copyright
case.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick of California ruled on August 12
that a group of visual artists -- including illustrators Sarah
Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz -- may pursue claims that
Stability A.I., Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway A.I.'s image
generation systems infringe upon their copyrights.
Orrick found the artists had reasonably argued that the companies
violate their rights by illegally storing work and that Stable
Diffusion, the A.I. image generator in question, may have been
built "to a significant extent on copyrighted works" and was
"created to facilitate that infringement by design."
The judge threw out claims accusing the A.I. companies of breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and breaking a second U.S. copyright
law connected to 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Still, the decision did not address the case's central questions.
Namely, does the abuse of artists' work by A.I. image models
infringe upon their copyright, and is the behavior of A.I.
companies protected under fair use?
The lawsuit will now move forward to discovery through which
artists may learn the ways in which the A.I. companies collected
copyrighted materials used to develop image generators.
The lawyers for the plaintiffs, Matthew Butterick and Joseph
Saveri, said via email that they believed the court's order to be
"a significant step forward for the case" and that "the court found
the plaintiff's theory that image-diffusion models like Stable
Diffusion contain compressed copies of their datasets to be
plausible."
Stability A.I. declined to comment on the decision.
The positive step comes more than a year-and-a-half on from when
the lawsuit was first filed in the Northern District of California
in January 2023. The plaintiffs brought a class-action lawsuit
saying the A.I. art generators violated copyright and unfair
competition laws. The judge dismissed the majority of the
allegations in October last year, but allowed a refiling.
Seven additional plaintiffs joined the case and the lawsuit that
was returned in November centered on Stability Diffusion, the image
generator model used by all the A.I. companies, and the notion it
contained "compressed copies" of the artists' work.
The data set in question, LAION, was allegedly built by scraping
billions of images from the internet -- including stock photo sites
such as Shutterstock and Getty Images, platforms such as Pinterest,
and websites hosting user-generated content such as Flickr and
Tumblr. Stability and Runway then used this data set to create
Stable Diffusion, which is used by Midjourney, one of the most
popular A.I. image generators that reported 20 million users in
April this year. [GN]
STRATEGIX MANAGEMENT: Faces Darby Class Action Lawsuit in Cal. Sup.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against STRATEGIX MANAGEMENT
LLC. The case is captioned as DARBY et al vs. STRATEGIX MANAGEMENT
LLC et al, Case No. CIVSB2423729 (Cal. Super., July 23, 2024).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Carlos Cabrera.
The suit alleges Defendants' violation of employment-related laws.
Strategix is a management consulting firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff Shawn Darby on behalf of all others similarly
situated is represented by:
Naddir David Alami, Esq.
ALAMI LAW GROUP
620 Newport Center Dr. No. 1100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 287-3594
SUNNOVA ENERGY: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sunnova Energy International 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 1, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from a purported stockholder
class action filed in the Southern District of Texas.
On February 16, 2024, a purported stockholder class action was
filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
individual executives in the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.
On June 28, 2024, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed their
first amended complaint on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased our stock between July 25, 2019 and May 1, 2024, alleging
certain statements made during the class period about our business,
operations and compliance policies were false and misleading and it
failed to disclose customer service complaints and alleged improper
business practices.
The lead plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.
The Company believes the lawsuit to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend ourselves.
Sunnova -- https://www.sunnova.com/ -- is a leading national
residential solar company.[BN]
SUNPOWER CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Poulin Willey Anastopoulo LLC announces that a class action has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired (or still own) the common stock of
SunPower Corporation ("SunPower" or the "Company") (NASDFAQ:SPRW)
between May 3, 2024 and July 19, 2024, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). SunPower provides photovoltaic ("PV") solar energy
generation systems and battery energy storage products with its
solar solutions designed for residential customers, with PV systems
that convert sunlight into electricity.
The Complaint, Case No. 3:24-cv-04775, alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, the Company had issues with its lenders (breaching
financial covenants), failure to timely file required filings with
SEC, an SEC investigation, a restatement of the Company's financial
statements, problems with its independent public auditors and its
suppliers. According to the Complaint, Defendants made false and
misleading statements and omissions including, but not limited to,
the issues identified above, that artificially inflated the price
of SunPower common stock during the Class Period.
The Complaint further alleges that the truth was revealed on July
18, 2024, when the Company informed its dealers it would no longer
be supporting new leases or power purchase agreements. On this
news, the Company's stock fell nearly 75% to $0.68. Indeed, the
stock fell 40% July 18, 2024 and 55% on July 19, 2024, the close of
the Class Period.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired (or currently own)
SunPower common stock should contact the Firm before October 7,
2024, the lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this securities class action, please contact
Ahmad Jackson at 803-222-222 or via e-mail at
ahmad.jackson@poulinwilley.com.
Any additional questions may be directed to Stuart J. Guber, Esq,
at stuart.guber@poulinwilley.com, the Firm's Director of
Shareholder Services and Securities Litigation, with almost 35
years of experience representing public pension funds, Taft-Hartley
union pension plans and health & welfare funds, and high net-worth
investors and other individuals in securities class actions and
opt-out litigation.
In addition, firm partner Roy Willey IV has served as counsel in
class actions and multi district litigations across the country. He
brings a creative, problem-solving based approach to handling cases
for consumers, investors and others harmed through no fault of
their own. As a result he has been repeatedly named among America's
Top 100 High Stakes Litigators, Best Lawyers, and Super Lawyers.
Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo has offices in Florence, Charleston,
Ladson, Columbia, Greenville, Lexington, Myrtle Beach, Rock Hill,
and Hampton, South Carolina. Charlotte and Lumberton, North
Carolina. Atlanta, Albany, Athens, Augusta, Columbus and Macon in
Georgia. Visit: RespectResults.com to learn more.
Contact:
Stuart Guber, Esq.
Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo
(803) 222-2222
stuart.guber@poulinwilley.com [GN]
SYMBOTIC INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Symbotic Inc. ("Symbotic" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SYM).
Such investors are advised to 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.
The class action concerns whether Symbotic and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
You have until October 15, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased
or otherwise acquired Symbotic securities during the Class Period.
A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On July 29, 2024, Symbotic reported its financial results for the
third quarter of its fiscal year. Among other items, Symbotic
reported earnings per share that failed to meet expectations, which
the Company attributed to below-expectation gross margins. Symbotic
also disclosed third quarter adjusted EBITDA of $15 million that
missed Symbotic's prior guidance by $13 million at the midpoint, a
reduction of more than 46.4%. Symbotic also provided fourth quarter
2024 guidance that fell short of analyst expectations.
On this news, Symbotic's stock price fell $8.38 per share, or
23.52%, to close at $27.25 per share on July 30, 2024.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
SYMBOTIC INC: Fox Sues Over Federal Securities Laws Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia L. Fox, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SYMBOTIC INC., RICHARD B. COHEN, and CAROL J. HIBBARD,
Case No. 1:24-cv-12090-MPK (D. Mass., Aug. 14, 2024), is brought as
a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired SYM securities between May 6, 2024,
to July 29, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws (the "Class").
The Defendants provided investors with material information
concerning SYM's expected earnings for the third quarter of fiscal
year 2024. Defendants' statements included, among other things,
confidence in the Company's projected earnings outlook on the back
of stable gross margins due to their efforts to decrease costs
related to slow deployment times and further accelerate deployment
cycles.
The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to
investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false
and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts
concerning the true state of SYM's potential for margin growth in
the third quarter; notably, that the Company was not truly equipped
to timely deploy their systems or otherwise appropriately manage
expenses through project delays. Such statements absent these
material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase
SYM's securities at artificially inflated prices.
The truth emerged on July 29, 2024 when SYM published their third
quarter fiscal year 2024 results. In pertinent part, Defendants'
published earnings failed to meet projections due to
below-expectation gross margins. Specifically, the Company's third
quarter adjusted EBITDA of $15 million missed their prior guide by
$13 million at the midpoint, a reduction of more than 46.4%. As a
result, Defendants provided fourth quarter fiscal year 2024
guidance that was well below market expectations.
Investors and analysts reacted immediately to SYM's revelation. The
price of SYM's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing
market price of $35.63 per share on July 29, 2024, SYM's stock
price fell to $27.25 per share on July 30, 2024, a decline of about
23.52% in the span of just a single day, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased SYM common stock at artificially inflated
prices.
SYM develops, implements, and operates end-to-end supply chain
automation technology in the United States and Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CN 06905
Phone: (203) 992-4523
Fax: (212) 363-7500
Email: shopkins@zlk.com
- and -
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Email: aapton@zlk.com
TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the
Southern District of New York.
On June 6, 2022, a purported securities class action complaint
(Schneider v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et. al.) was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of the Company's officers.
The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company's common stock during the period October 28,
2021 through April 27, 2022.
The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder based on allegedly false or misleading statements and
omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.
The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.
On August 2, 2022, a duplicative purported securities class action
complaint (De Schutter v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al.) was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The claims and parties in De Schutter were substantially similar to
those in Schneider.
The De Schutter case was transferred on consent to the Southern
District court, and the Schneider and De Schutter actions have now
been consolidated under the caption In re Teladoc Health, Inc.
Securities Litigation.
On August 23, 2022, the court appointed Leadersel Innotech ESG as
lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.
The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 30,
2022, on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the
Company's common stock during the period February 24, 2021 to July
27, 2022, and filed a second amended complaint on December 6, 2022,
on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the
Company's common stock during the period February 11, 2021 to July
27, 2022.
On July 5, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motion to
dismiss the complaint.
On November 17, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an appeal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the
Company and its named officers intend to defend the appeal and any
further proceedings in the lawsuit vigorously.
Teladoc provides direct-to-consumer, online health services.[BN]
TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Stary Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Stary securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On May 17, 2024, a purported securities class action complaint
(Stary v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et. al.) was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former
officers.
The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company's common stock during the period November 2,
2022 through February 20, 2024.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder based on allegedly false or misleading statements and
omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.
The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.
The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the
Company and its named officers intend to defend the lawsuits
vigorously.
Teladoc provides direct-to-consumer, online health services.[BN]
TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Waits Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Waits securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On July 15, 2024, a duplicative purported securities class action
complaint (Waits v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al.) was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers.
The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company's common stock during the period November 2,
2022 through February 20, 2024.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder based on allegedly false or misleading statements and
omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.
The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.
The Company believes that it has substantial defenses, and the
Company and its named officers intend to defend the lawsuits
vigorously.
Teladoc provides direct-to-consumer, online health services.[BN]
TENNESSEE GAS: Parties Seeks Jan. 27, 2025 Fact Discovery Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADISH JOHNSON CO.,
LIMITED, individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, V. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC and KINETICA
ENERGY EXPRESS, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-07363-CJB-EJD (E.D. La.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the Joint Motion
to Adopt Proposed Scheduling Order for Class Certification.
(1) Defendants will serve opposing counsel with their affidavits
of
experts for the class certification hearing on or before
Dec.
13, 2024.
(2) Plaintiff will serve opposing counsel with its preliminary
witness list for the class certification hearing on or
before
Dec. 17, 2024.
(3) Defendants will serve opposing counsel with their
preliminary
witness lists for the class certification hearing on or
before
Dec. 20, 2024.
(4) Plaintiff will serve opposing counsel with its rebuttal
affidavits of experts for the class certification hearing on
or
before Jan. 21, 2025.
(5) Fact discovery related to class certification will close on
Jan. 27, 2025.
(6) Expert discovery related to class certification will close
on
Feb. 28, 2025.
(7) Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be filed on
or
before March 21, 2025.
(8) Defendants' opposition to class certification must be filed
on
or before April 18, 2025.
(9) Plaintiff's final witness and exhibit lists for the class
certification hearing must be filed on or before April 29,
2025.
(10) Defendants' final witness and exhibit lists for the class
certification hearing must be filed on or before May 6,
2025.
Tennessee Gas provides gas transportation and storage services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HWdvDF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Swanson, Esq.
Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
Kerry J. Miller, Esq.
H.S. Bartlett III, Esq.
Lance C. McCardle, Esq.
E. Blair Schilling, Esq.
Julie S. Meaders, Esq.
Isabel A. Englehart, Esq.
FISHMAN HAYGOOD, LLP
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4600
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 586-5252
Facsimile: (504) 586-5250
E-mail: jswanson@fishmanhaygood.com
sherman@fishmanhaygood.com
kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com
tbartlett@fishmanhaygood.com
lmccardle@fishmanhaygood.com
bschilling@fishmanhaygood.com
jmeaders@fishmanhaygood.com
ienglehart@fishmanhaygood.com
- and -
Gladstone N. Jones, III, Esq.
Michael P. Arata, Esq.
Kevin E. Huddell, Esq.
Lynn E. Swanson, Esq.
Alayne Gobeille, Esq.
Thomas F. Dixon, Esq.
Rosa E. Acheson, Esq.
John T. Arnold, Esq.
JONES SWANSON HUDDELL, L.L.C.
601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 523-2500
Facsimile: (504) 523-2508
E-mail: gjones@jonesswanson.com
marata@jonesswanson.com
khuddell@jonesswanson.com
jarnold@jonesswanson.com
lswanson@jonesswanson.com
agobeille@jonesswanson.com
tdixon@jonesswanson.com
racheson@jonesswanson.com
- and -
S. Jacob Braud, Esq.
BALLAY, BRAUD & COLON, PLC
81 l 4 Highway 23, Suite 101
Belle Chasse, LA 70037
Telephone: (504) 394-9841
Facsimile: (504) 394-9945
E-mail: Jacob@NolaAttomeys.com
- and -
A.M. "Tony" Clayton, Esq.
Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux
D'Ann R. Penner
CLAYTON, FRUGÉ, WARD & HENDRY
3741 La. Highway 1 South
Port Allen, LA 70767
Telephone: (225)344-7000
Facsimile: (225) 383-7631
E-mail: dpenner@claytonfrugelaw.com)
- and -
T. Taylor Townsend, Esq.
T. TAYLOR TOWNSEND, LLC
320 Saint Denis Street
Natchitoches, LA 71457
Telephone: (318) 238-3612
Facsimile: (318) 238-6103
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard D. McConnell, Jr., Esq.
KEAN MILLER LLP
400 Convention Street, Suite 700
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 387-0999
E-mail: richard.mcconnell@keanmiller.com
- and -
Michael R. Phillips, Esq.
Claire E. Juneau, Esq.
Tyler Moore Kostal, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Gelpi, Esq.
KEAN MILLER LLP
909 Poydras Street, Suite 3600
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 585-3050
E-mail: mike.phillips@keanmiller.com
claire.juneau@keanmiller.com
tyler.kostal@keanmiller.com
jeff.gelpi@keanmiller.com
- and -
Morgan J. Wells, Jr., Esq.
Evan J. Godofsky, Esq.
LARZERLERE PICOU WELLS SIMPSON
LONERO, LLC
3850 N. Causeway Boulevard, Suite 500
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 834-6500
Facsimile: (504) 834-6565
E-mail: mwells@lpwsl.com
egodofsky@lpwsl.com
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Webb Securities Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
TETRA Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 31, 2024, that on May 14, 2024, the
plaintiff in a putative class action complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery filed an Amended Motion for Dismissal without
prejudice and the court entered an Order Granting Plaintiff's
Amended Motion for Dismissal without prejudice.
The company was a named defendant in several lawsuits and
respondents in certain governmental proceedings arising in the
ordinary course of business. On April 25, 2024, a purported
stockholder of the company filed a putative class action complaint
in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants all current
members of the Board, the Company and the Rights Agent. The
litigation is captioned "Webb, et al. v. Murphy, et al.," C.A. No.
2024-0445. The plaintiff alleged that the Board breached their
fiduciary duties by adopting and maintaining the company's Tax
Benefits Preservation Plan. The plaintiff seeks, among other
relief, to enjoin said Plan.
Tetra is an energy services and solutions company with operations
on six continents providing products and services to the oil and
gas industry and calcium chloride for diverse applications.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Asthma Inhaler
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in May
2023, certain plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against Teva and a number of its affiliates, alleging that Teva
engaged in anticompetitive conduct to suppress generic competition
to its branded "QVAR" asthma inhalers in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. Teva
plans to move to dismiss these claims.
On May 7, 2024, the court granted Teva's motion in part and denied
its motion in part. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claim that Teva
had engaged in "sham litigation" and certain of plaintiffs' state
antitrust and consumer protection claims, but permitted the case to
proceed on the remainder of plaintiffs' allegations. Following this
decision, two direct purchaser plaintiffs filed similar putative
class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.
On June 18, 2024, Teva answered in all cases and simultaneously
moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), which
remains pending. Subsequently, on June 28, 2024, Teva stipulated to
the dismissal of the two direct purchaser plaintiffs’ claims,
with prejudice.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company into generics, innovative medicines and biopharmaceuticals,
with worldwide operations and headquarters in Israel and a
significant presence in the United States, Europe and many other
markets around the world.
TIMBER CANNABIS: Underwood Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Tips
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Underwood, an individual, on behalf of himself and those
similarly-situated v. Timber Cannabis Co. LLC, a Domestic Limited
Liability Company, Stash Ventures, LLC, a Domestic Limited
Liability Company, and Scott Moorehead, Individually, Case No.
5:24-cv-12161-MFL-APP (E.D. Mich., Aug. 16, 2024), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as a result of
the Defendants' unlawful collection of tips.
The Plaintiff works thirty-five hours per week. It is common in the
industry for cannabis consumers to leave tips. Timber placed tip
baskets near each Budtender's register for customers to tip
employees for their customer service, and Allegan store customers
left tips consistent with industry custom. Budtenders exclusively
kept the tips customers gave them; management did not receive
tips.
The Plaintiff is one of Timber's highest selling Budtenders, and
thus, one of the highest earners of tips. On bad days, Plaintiff
earned $30 in tips, and on good days, Plaintiff earned $150 in
tips. In January 2024, Defendants changed their tipping policy and
began confiscating the budtenders' tips, using a portion to
purchase staff groceries, and keeping the remainder. The tip
baskets were replaced by a single tip jar, and budtenders were made
to sign an agreement that they would not touch the tip jar. Now,
only management had the right to access and control the tips.
The Plaintiff, like many other employees, opposed Defendants' new
policy of confiscating budtenders' tips. Shortly after the new tip
policy was instituted, Plaintiff transferred to Timber's 691 S. US
Hwy 131, Three Rivers, MI 49093 location ("Three Rivers store").
The Defendants' new policy of confiscating budtenders' tips was,
and continues to be, in effect at the Three Rivers store. Upon
information and belief, all seven Timber stores operated by Stash
Ventures have instituted the same tip confiscating policy, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff began employment with Timber as a "Budtender,"
earning $13/hour, plus tips.
Timber is a Michigan limited liability company engaged in the
production, distribution, and retail sale of cannabis products
across Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ertis Tereziu, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
Southfield, MI 48075
Phone: (313) 739-1953
Email: etereziu@forthepeople.com
TRADITA CORP: Fails to Pay Waiter's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINA DEDA, on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated v. TRADITA CORP, TRADITA JONE INC., and RAMIZ KUKA., Case
No. 1:24-cv-06219 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
wages at the lawful wage rate under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The Defendant allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff and Collective
action the overtime wage rate for all hours worked over 40 hours in
a workweek in contravention of the FLSA. Further, the Defendant
failed to pay the Plaintiff the minimum wage rate for all hours
worked in a workweek, and overtime wage rate for all hours worked
over 40 hours in a workweek in contravention of the NYLL, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff also seeks statutory penalties, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from end of 2022 to
June 2024 as a waiter.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
Brendan Tighe, Esq.
SPASOJEVICH LAW, P.C.
9224 Queens Boulevard #740010
Rego Park, NY 11374
Telephone: (914) 487-3592
E-mail: ls@spasojevichlaw.com
TRINITY ENVIRONMENTAL: Enriquez Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
ROY ENRIQUEZ, Plaintiff v. TRINITY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC,
and SELECT WATER SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
7:24-cv-00149 (W.D. Tex., July 2, 2024) is a class action arising
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in the oilfield as a
construction foreman/field operator/pumper from August 2022 until
May 14, 2024, performing manual labor job duties and preparing
crews for jobs to provide Defendants' services to clients.
Throughout his employment, he was classified as an exempt employee
and was not paid proper overtime wages, says the Plaintiff.
Trinity provides oilfield waste services to the oil and gas
industry throughout the State of Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Fernando M. Bustos, Esq.
Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq.
Brandon C. Callahan, Esq.
Benjamin E. Casey, Esq.
BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C.
P.O. Box 1980
Lubbock, TX 79408-1980
Telephone: (806) 780-3976
Facsimile: (806) 780-3800
E-mail: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com
mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com
bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com
bcasey@bustoslawfirm.com
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Ambridge Area Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Ambridge Area School class suit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.
On December 8, 2023, a lawsuit was filed against TILC titled
Ambridge Area School District et al. v. Norfolk Southern
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01530-CB, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs in this putative class action lawsuit assert claims
against Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk Southern Railway
Company, Oxy Vinyls, LP, GATX Corporation, General American Marks
Company, and TILC for negligence, negligence per se, strict
liability, public and private nuisance, future health monitoring,
trespass, and punitive damages.
On February 23, 2024, TILC filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint, which remains pending.
Trinity Industries, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries own
businesses that are providers of railcar products and services in
Texas.
TRUEACCORD CORP: Alexis Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
---------------------------------------------------------
KELLY ALEXIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRUEACCORD CORP., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-00815-FB (W.D. Tex., July 22, 2024) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Fred Biery.
Trueaccord Corp. provides debt recovery services. The Company
offers platform that bridges the gap between the creditor and those
in debt. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
Facsimile: (973) 282-8603
Email: dz@zemellawllc.com
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Settlement in Miller Suit Initially OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles Miller, v.
Trumbull Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01545-JJT (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge John Tuchi entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and
certification of the settlement class:
1. The Court certifies the following Class for the purposes of
settlement only ("the Settlement Class"):
"All persons insured under one of Defendants' personal lines
automobile policies issued in Arizona that provided
uninsured
("UM") or underinsured ("UIM") motorist coverage for more
than
one motor vehicle, and who received a claim payment equal to
the limit of liability for the UM or UIM benefits for only
one
person/one vehicle (or whose payment was based on the limit
of
liability for UM or UIM coverage for only one vehicle where
the
full per accident single vehicle limit was paid to multiple
individuals) and who were not notified of their right to
select
which vehicle's coverage was applicable during the Class
Period, as reflected in the agreed-upon list transmitted by
Defendants' counsel to Plaintiff's counsel on May 29, 2024,
which list officially identifies the members of the
Settlement
Class generally described herein.
2. The Court designates Plaintiff Charles Miller as Class
Representative for the Settlement Class.
3. The Court appoints Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class.
In 2021, this Court ruled that Arizona law requires stacking of
uninsured motorist ("UM") or underinsured motorist ("UIM")
coverages within a multi-vehicle policy under A.R.S. §
20-259.01(H), where the insurer did not provide the insured an
opportunity to elect which vehicle’s coverage was applicable to
the claim.
Trumbull Insurance provides fire and casualty insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ND6OzS at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRUPANION INC: O'Connor Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trupanion, Inc. The
case is styled as Ryan O'Connor, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Trupanion, Inc., Case No. CACE24011593
(Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Aug. 14, 2024).
Trupanion, Inc. -- http://www.trupanion.com/-- is a pet insurance
provider headquartered in Seattle, Washington established in
1998.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
TTEC SERVICES: Wilfong Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK WILFONG, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TTEC SERVICES
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-01076-CNS-KAS (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Section
16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), conditionally
certifying the proposed FLSA class and implementing a procedure.
The Representative Plaintiff defines the proposed FLSA collective
class as follows:
"All former and current customer service representatives, and
persons with jobs performing substantially identical functions
and/or duties to customer service representatives, employed by
TTEC Services Corporation in the United States at any and all
times within the three year period prior to the filing of this
lawsuit."
The Plaintiff initiated this action as a "collective action'
against the Defendant as a result of TTEC's practices and policies
of not paying its non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees, for all hours worked, including
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked in excess of 40
each workweek, in violation of the FLSA.
The Defendant opposes the relief requested.
TTEC is a digital global customer experience (CX) technology and
services company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Oqndj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
TWITTER INC: Faces Dutch Class Suit Over Data Security Measures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dutch New reports that social media service X (formerly Twitter)
faces another class action court case in the Netherlands, this time
for "gross violations of fundamental rights of data protection and
consumer protection".
The case is being brought by the Somi foundation, which has
previously been involved in lawsuits against TikTok and Facebook
parent company Meta Platforms. Somi alleges that Elon Musk's
company has failed to take measures to make the X platform a safe
haven.
The foundation says there have been at least four data breaches at
X since February 2022 and that the personal data of X users has
ended up on the dark web. Somi also claims X falls short in
countering hate speech and allows advertisers to target advertising
based on users' sensitive personal data, such as political views or
religious beliefs.
‘It is clear that X has acted unlawfully and unjustifiably
enriched itself at the expense of its users," Somi said in a press
release. "These practices have caused harm. Therefore, SOMI demands
an end to the unlawful conduct and compensation on behalf of the
affected X users."
Somi, which does not go into details about how much compensation it
will claim, is now trying to attract X users to sign up to the
lawsuit.
In January three Dutch foundations were given the green light by
judges in Amsterdam to take TikTok to court if they fail to settle
with the social media giant.
One foundation -- Take Back Your Privacy -- will represent children
in the class action case and a second -- Massaschade & Consument --
will represent adults. Somi is also involved but not as a main
player.
The Somi foundation is also demanding compensation of €500 on
behalf of Dutch Facebook users who have signed up for that case.
[GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Martin Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stephanie Martin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No.
CACE24008562 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July
25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-22843-XXXX.
The Complaint alleges that Uber has unlawfully charged taxes on
optional delivery charges to consumers throughout the state of
Florida. The Plaintiff alleges that Uber has a "practice of
charging sales tax on delivery fees that is unlawful," or "so
reckless or wanting in care," and that Uber "has collected from its
customers, and will continue to collect, thousands of dollars in
sales taxes on separately stated and avoidable delivery fees." The
Plaintiff further claims that some of the taxes collected by Uber
have not yet been paid to the state of Florida, and that Uber
remains in possession and control of the collected taxes. Based on
those allegations, Plaintiff asserts three causes of action against
Uber generally: "Negligence," "Declaratory and Injunctive Relief,"
and "Violation of Section 501.204, Fla. Stat.," or the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan B. Morton, Esq.
Alejandra Desiree Gonzalez, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
Southeast Financial Center
200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3900
Miami, FL 33131-2399
Phone: (305) 539-3300
Fax: (305) 358-7095
Email: jonathan.morton@klgates.com
alejandra.gonzalez@klgates.com
UDEMY INC: Continues to Defend Saleh Video Privacy Protection Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Udemy 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
the Saleh Video Privacy Protection Act class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On December 12, 2022, a putative class action complaint captioned
Mohamed Saleh v. Udemy, Inc., was filed against the Company,
alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (the
"VPPA") and claiming that Udemy violated the VPPA by knowingly
sharing personally identifiable information about the viewing
history of Udemy courses with an advertiser.
The complaint is currently pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:23-cv-02207.
The complaint seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
statutory, liquidated, and punitive damages, as well as reasonable
attorney fees and costs.
On August 30, 2023, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration and on March 21, 2024, the motion was granted and the
matter stayed pending individual arbitration.
In addition, several law firms have threatened to file individual
arbitration demands against the Company on behalf of approximately
20,000 purported Udemy learners, and one law firm has initiated 10
individual arbitrations.
The firms threaten claims similar to those in the class action
complaint described above.
Udemy has resolved the claims of approximately 6,000 of these
purported learners for an immaterial amount.
The Company intends to vigorously defend ourselves in these
matters.
Udemy, Inc. is a global learning company headquartered in San
Francisco, California whose online platform empowers organizations
and individuals with flexible and effective skill acquisition and
development.
UNILEVER UNITED: Class Cert Bid in Little Suit Due August 25, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Little, et al., v.
Unilever United States, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01189 (D. Conn.,
Filed Sept. 21, 2022), Hon. Judge Michael P. Shea entered an order
granting the joint motion for extension of time.
-- Discovery, including depositions of expert witnesses, if
necessary, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4), will be
completed
(not propounded) by July 15, 2025.
-- A damages analysis will be provided by any party who has a
claim
or counter claim for damages by April 16, 2025 (Plaintiffs) and
by
June 16, 2025 (Defendants), and supplemented timely thereafter
up
to and including the time of trial.
-- Fact discovery, including witness depositions, will be
completed
by March 18, 2025.
-- The parties' expert reports on issues on which they bear the
burden of proof will be due April 16, 2025.
Depositions of such experts will be completed by May 15, 2025
.
-- The parties' expert reports on issues on which they do not bear
the burden of proof will be due June 16, 2025 . Depositions of
such experts will be completed by July 15, 2025.
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due August 25,
2025.
-- Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is due September 26, 2025 or 30 days after the
motion for class certification is filed.
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of its motion for class
certification
is due October 17, 2025 , or 21 days after Defendants'
opposition
is filed.
-- Dispositive motions are due 30 days following the Court's
ruling
on class certification. The parties shall file response and
reply
briefs within the time limits set forth in the Local Rules of
Civil Procedure.
-- The Joint Trial Memorandum is due 30 days following the
Court's
ruling on dispositive motions if any are filed.
-- In addition, a Telephonic Status Conference will be held on
April
22, 2025, at 4:00 p.m.
-- The parties will file a joint status report by April 15, 2025.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Unilever manufactures personal care products. The Company offers,
laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body
washes.[CC]
UNITED AIRLINES: Court Dismisses SAF Greenwashing Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lamar Johnson of ESG Dive reports that a federal court dismissed a
class-action suit brought against the United Airlines that alleged
it deceptively advertised its sustainable aviation fuel efforts.
Dive Brief:
-- A U.S. District Court in Maryland dismissed a class-action
lawsuit against United Airlines that alleged the airline
deceptively advertised the true environmental impact and scale of
its sustainable aviation program.
-- A United customer, Alexander Zajac, brought the class-action
claim under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act last November,
stating he paid higher prices to fly United under the impression
the airline was utilizing more sustainable aviation fuels -- a
claim Zajac alleges was a "false" and "misleading" representation
of its SAF consumption.
-- United argued that since the gripe was with the higher prices,
the claim was preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act.
District Court Judge Paula Xinis agreed and dismissed the claim
with prejudice on Aug. 13. The need to scale SAF investment,
production and adoption, however, recently led American Airlines
CEO Robert Isom to sound the alarm on the aviation sector's
decarbonization efforts.
Dive Insight:
Zajac said he paid higher prices to fly with United between 2020
and 2023 due to the airline's environmental claims and its intent
to go "100% green" and be carbon neutral by 2050. He was
particularly drawn to the airline's "Eco-Skies" program's use of
sustainable aviation fuel, per the Aug. 13 ruling.
Zajac's suit, later certified as a class action, alleged United
violated the MCPA because the airline advertised itself as the
first "in aviation history to fly a passenger flight using 100%
sustainable aviation fuel." However, Zajac said he later found out
that SAF made up just 0.025% of the airline's fuel supply and,
hence, would not have paid more to fly with the airline if he had
known this, according to the dismissal.
For the sake of evaluating the preemption claim, Xinis was required
to take all factual allegations as true and "construe them in the
light most favorable" to the plaintiff.
United said the claim primarily alleges "deception in its prices
and services," which is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act
expressly prohibiting states from enacting or enforcing laws, rules
or any other provisions that relate to air carriers' rates, routes
or services.
The Supreme Court previously ruled that state laws connected to
airline rates, routes and services are preempted under the Airline
Deregulation Act, as are "violations of 'generally applicable
consumer protection laws' related to deceptive fare advertising,"
Xinis wrote. She also cited a prior decision from the U.S. Fifth
Circuit of Appeals that held that consumer law violations
concerning transportation implicate an airline's services.
"Reading the Complaint most favorably to Zajac and the putative
class, United's alleged misrepresentations were aimed at inducing
consumers to fly United at higher ticket prices," Xinis wrote.
"From this, the Court easily concludes that the MCPA claim relates
to United's provision of transportation services and is therefore
preempted by the Deregulation Act. . . . The claim must be
dismissed."
Xinis said the claim would be dismissed with prejudice -- barring
the claimants from amending and re-filing the claim. The core of
the complaint is the allegation that United's environmental
advertising is designed to entice Zajac and others to pay premium
prices, which will always implicate the airline's services.
"Given the broad reach of the [Airline] Deregulation Act's
preemption provision, the Court cannot see how Zajac could amend
the claim to escape dismissal," Xinis wrote.
United's 2023 Corporate Responsibility Report reaffirmed the
airline's commitment to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by
2050 "without relying on the use of voluntary carbon offsets," CEO
Scott Kirby wrote in an included letter. The company's plan will
rely on continuous reduction of fossil fuel-based jet fuel; scaling
and commercializing the adoption of SAF; looking beyond air travel
and reducing operational emissions on the ground; and
collaboration, per the report.
The airline has a 2035 target -- which received validation from the
Science Based Targets initiative in May 2023 -- to reduce its
carbon emissions intensity by half, compared to a 2019 baseline,
according to the report.
Regarding SAF, however, the airline said current supply of the less
carbon-intensive fuel is "constrained" and represents "far less
than 1% of global commercial aviation fuel usage." American
Airlines' CEO Isom previously said "there's an urgent need for more
and faster action across the public and private sectors" to help
the aviation industry meet its decarbonization goals.
The airline launched two SAF funding vehicles in 2023 and recently
inked a deal to purchase 1 million gallons of SAF through the end
of the year for flights departing from Chicago O'Hare International
Airport. In total, United has purchased SAF for flights in five
cities: Los Angeles, San Fancisco, Chicago, London and Amsterdam.
[GN]
UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY: Chang Sues Over Unpaid Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Chang and Anya Forrest, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly Situated v. UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY, LLC d/b/a
GARDAWORLD, Case No. 1:24-cv-02377 (D.D.C., Aug. 15, 2024), is
brought against United American Security, LLC ("GardaWorld") for
its security officers working in office buildings within the
District of Columbia who were not paid the proper wages mandated by
the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act Revision Act ("DCMWA")
and the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law
("DCWPCL").
GardaWorld intentionally and consistently underpaid its security
officers by denying them their rightful wages for regular and
overtime work. The Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated security officers, seek to recover these unpaid
wages and other damages from GardaWorld. The Plaintiffs bring this
action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated current
and former security officers who worked in the District of Columbia
and were not paid the proper wages mandated by the DCMWA and
DCWPCL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have worked as security officers for GardaWorld.
GardaWorld is a security services company that specializes in the
recruitment, training, and management of security personnel across
the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
Jonathan P. Tucker, Esq.
DCWAGELAW
519 H Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 803-6083
Fax: (202) 683-6102
Email: justin@dcwagelaw.com
jt@dcwagelaw.com
UNITED STATES: Jenke Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTHER JENKE, ET AL., v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:23-cv-02950-CJN (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the time to
move for class certification for 90 days after the resolution of
the pending motion to dismiss.
The Defendant government has consented to the relief sought in this
motion.
The Complaint was filed on Oct. 4, 2023. The current deadline to
file the motion for certification was on Jan. 2, 2024.
The Defendant filed its current motion to dismiss on Dec. 4, 2023,
under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) [ECF 10]. The government argues
that Plaintiffs' lawsuit should be dismissed on res judicata
grounds. Also, the government argues that the United States has not
waived sovereign immunity under the Administrative Procedure Act
because the relief Plaintiffs seek is for "money damages."
Under these circumstances, it would be a waste of judicial
resources (not to mention the resources of the parties and their
counsel) to engage in motion practice concerning class
certification at this stage in the proceeding.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S9o3ZI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Marc Zell, Esq.
Noam Schreiber, Esq.
ZELL, ARON & CO.
34 Ben Yehuda St., 14th Floor
Jerusalem, Israel 9423001
Telephone: 011-972-2-633-6300
E-mail: mzell@fandz.com
noam.schreiber@fandz.com
UNITED WATER: Seeks Leave to Allow Expert to Testify via Zoom
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KNOTT, V. UNITED
WATER SYSTEM, INC., ET AL., Case No. 6:23-cv-00401-DCJ-DJA (W.D.
La.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their
Refiled Unopposed/Ex Parte Motion for leave to allow expert John
Kind to testify via Zoom at the Class Certification Hearing
currently scheduled to begin on Sept. 23, 2024.
Counsel for UWS found out for the first time on June 24, 2024, that
Dr. Kind had a scheduling conflict that would prevent him from
testifying in person at the Class Certification Hearing.
Dr. Kind scheduled his personal trip to Poland over a year ago,
which was prior to Dr. Kind entering into an engagement letter with
counsel for UWS on March 18, 2024.
Counsel for Plaintiffs were first made aware of Dr. Kind's conflict
on July 1, 2024, during Dr. Kind's deposition, roughly four hours
into the deposition through testimony elicited from Dr. Kind by
Plaintiffs' counsel.
The Plaintiffs will not suffer any disadvantage or prejudice
because Dr. Kind will be testifying in real-time via Zoom and will
be available for cross-examination.
UWS asserts that the filing of this motion for leave will not cause
any undue delay and does not involve any bad faith or dilatory
motive.
UWS submits that allowing Dr. Kind to testify in real-time via Zoom
will assist the Court in properly adjudicating the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs still reserve and maintain their right to challenge
and attempt to exclude or limit Dr. Kind.
United Water is a non-profit water treatment and distribution
corporation.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=819mRr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
John E.W. Baay II, Esq.
J. Michael Digiglia, Esq.
Nicholas S. Bergeron, Esq.
GIEGER, LABORDE & LAPEROUSE, LLC
Hancock Whitney Building
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4800
New Orleans, LA 70139
Telephone: (504) 561-0400
Facsimile: (504) 561-1011
E-mail: jbaay@glllaw.com
mdigiglia@glllaw.com
nbergeron@glllaw.com
UNO CAFE & BILLIARDS: Loaiza Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigo Arenas Loaiza, Emiliano Chavez, Angelica Berrio Trujillo,
Dayhana Gordillo, Carolina Gonzalez, Jose Leguizamon, Elizabeth
Ruiz Martinez, and Lina Restrepo, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. UNO CAFE & BILLIARDS INC. d/b/a UNO
CAFE & BILLIARDS, and YANG K. KIM, Case No. 1:24-cv-05711
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2024), is brought to recover from the
Defendants their unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours
pay, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the
New York Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA").
Throughout their respective employment periods, Defendants failed
to pay Plaintiffs who worked as servers at the statutory minimum
wage rate and all other Plaintiffs, who did not work as servers, at
the correct overtime wage rate for hours worked over forty per
workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiffs
spread-of-hours pay when they worked shifts spanning over ten hours
and to provide all Plaintiffs with wage notices at their time of
hire and accurate wage statements with each payment of wages, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are servers, cooks, bartenders, bussers, and
cashiers at Uno Cafe Billiards, a pool hall and restaurant located
in Jackson Heights, Queens.
Uno Cafe & Billiards, Inc. is a domestic business & corporation
that owns, operates, and does business as Uno Cafe & Billiards, a
pool hall
and restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
Camille A. Sanchez, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 583-9500
Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
cuadra@pechmanlaw.com
sanchez@pechmanlaw.com
UPBOUND GROUP: Continues to Defend McBurnie Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Upbound Group 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the McBurnie class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Company is a defendant in a putative class action entitled
McBurnie, et al. v. Acceptance Now, LLC, brought on behalf of
individuals who entered into a rental purchase agreement with the
Company's Acceptance Now business in California and were charged a
processing fee and/or an expedited fee.
Plaintiffs allege that the fees they were charged were neither
"reasonable" nor "actually incurred" in violation of the Karnette
Rental-Purchase Act and other California state consumer protection
laws.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages pursuant to the Karnette
Rental-Purchase Act; statutory damages pursuant to the Karnette
Rental-Purchase Act; attorneys' fees and costs; exemplary damages;
and public injunctions for alleged violations of the Karnette
Rental-Purchase Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
and California unfair competition laws.
The action is currently pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.
In November 2022, the District Court denied our motion to compel
arbitration, and in December 2022, we filed an interlocutory appeal
of that denial with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, pending which the District Court proceedings were
stayed.
In March 2024, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's
denial of its motion to compel arbitration and its finding that
plaintiffs' challenge to the processing fee was not moot, while
remanding the action to the District Court to consider whether
plaintiffs have standing to challenge the expedited payment fee.
Plaintiffs have since notified the District Court that they do not
intend to pursue their claims regarding the expedited payment fee.
In June 2024, the Company filed a petition for certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court, appealing the decision from the Court of
Appeals.
At the same time, proceedings before the District Court have
resumed and there is no longer a stay in place at the District
Court.
It intends to continue to vigorously defend this case.
Headquartered in Plano, Texas, Upbound Group, Inc. is a leading
provider of technology driven, flexible, no debt obligation leasing
solutions.
VAUGHAN MCLEAN: Removes Demetro Suit to District of Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of KATHERINE DEMETRO; NICOLE LOY; ARAMIS
PENLAND; MADISON BRUMBAUGH; MARILYN TOMSIC; DAMALI BAXTER; KATE
KOVAROVIC; BRITTANY BAINE; BRUNO MUSCOLINO; CLAIR SCHAUB; KONRAD
SCOTT-LUDWIG; CHRISTOPHER A HARRIS; SHAHRZAD RASTEGAR; TAMMY
MACDONALD; SHAYDA SAFIKHANI; TOMAS GONZALEZ GINESTET; JUSTIN
CONGLETON; JESSICA SARKIS; VALERIE EVANS; MARIA EMANUEL; and
MARLENE MARMOL; individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. VAUGHAN MCLEAN, LLC; VAUGHAN PLACE, LLC;
and BSPRT CRE FINANCE, LLC, Defendants, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
(Case No. 2024-CAB-003941) to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia on July 26, 2024.
The clerk of court for the District of Columbia assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-02199-APM.
The case is assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta.
Vaughan McLean, LLC is engaged in legal services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew P. McGuire, Esq.
IN REM PLLC
810 7th Street NE Suite 3b
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 618-3461
Email: amcguire@racatty.com
- and -
Aristotle Charles Theresa, Esq.
STOOP LAW
1604 V Street, SE
Washington, DC 20020
Telephone: (202) 651-1148
Email: actheresa@stooplaw.com
- and -
Constantinos G. Panagopoulos, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1909 K Street, NW 12th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 661-2202
Facsimile: (202) 661-2299
Email: cgp@ballardspahr.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian Wood Thompson, Esq.
JACKSON & CAMPBELL, P.C.
2300 N St NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 457-1648
Email: bwthompson@jackscamp.com
- and -
Nathan John Bresee, Esq.
JACKSON & CAMPBELL, P.C.
2300 N Street, NW Suite 300
DC, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 457-1668
Email: nbresee@jackscamp.com
VENTURA COUNTY CREDIT: Cline Files TCPA Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ventura County Credit
Union. The case is styled as Donna Cline, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Ventura County Credit Union, Case
No. 24CU006023C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Aug. 15, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort/Unfair Business
Practice."
Ventura County Credit Union -- https://www.vccuonline.net/ --
operates as a financial cooperative. The Union provides financial
solutions such as saving and checking accounts, loans, insurance,
credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Ste. 201
Madison, WI 53705
Phone: 608-237-1775
VENTURA ORTHOPEDICS: Ayala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ventura Orthopedics
Medical Group, Inc. The case is styled as Angelica Rachel Ayala,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Ventura Orthopedics Medical Group, Inc., Case No. 2024CUOE026681
(Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 25, 2024).
The case type is stated "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Ventura Orthopedics -- https://venturaortho.com/ -- offer superior
clinical facilities equipped with state-of-the art technology to
ensure patients receive the best care available.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Yslas, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: 213-255-3937
Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com
VIA RENEWABLES: Faces Amburgey Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------
Via Renewables 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 1, 2024, that the Company faces the
Amburgey class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.
On July 19, 2024, Joshua Amburgey, a purported stockholder of the
Company at the time of the Merger, filed a verified class action
complaint, Joshua Amburgey, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Via Renewables, Inc., et al., Case No.
2024-0762-KSJM (Del. Ch.) (the "Amburgey Action") in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Court") against the
Company and Amanda E. Bush, Stephen Kennedy and Kenneth Hartwick in
their capacities as members of the Company's Special Transaction
Committee of the Board of Directors ("Special Committee"), as well
as Mr. Maxwell, Retailco, LLC, TxEx Energy Investments, LLC,
Electric Holdco, LLC, NuDevco Retail Holdings, LLC and NuDevco
Retail, LLC.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the Company's public stockholders in connection with
the Merger.
Via Renewables Inc. is an independent retail energy services. It
offers its services under the Electricity Maine, Electricity N.H.,
Major Energy, Provider Power Massachusetts, Spark Energy, and Verde
Energy brands.
VIA RENEWABLES: Faces Taylor Class Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------
Via Renewables 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 1, 2024, that the Company faces the
Taylor class suit in the Delaware Court.
On July 25, 2024, Bruce Taylor, a purported stockholder of the
Company at the time of the Merger, filed a verified class action
complaint, Bruce Taylor v. W. Keith Maxwell III, et al., Case No.
2024-0794 (Del. Ch.) (the "Taylor Action") in the Delaware Court
against the Special Committee, and Mike Barajas, in his capacity as
the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as well as Mr. Maxwell in
his capacity as controlling stockholder of the Company.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and participated in the provision of a materially untrue and
misleading proxy statement to Company's minority stockholders in
connection with the Merger.
Via Renewables Inc. is an independent retail energy services. It
offers its services under the Electricity Maine, Electricity N.H.,
Major Energy, Provider Power Massachusetts, Spark Energy, and Verde
Energy brands.
VIA RENEWABLES: Major Energy Continues to Defend Glikin Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Via Renewables 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 1, 2024, that Major Energy Electric
continues to defend itself from the Glikin variable rate class suit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
On January 14, 2021, Glikin, et al. v. Major Energy Electric
Services, LLC, a purported variable rate class action, was filed by
a Maryland customer in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, attempting to represent a class of all Major
Energy customers (including customers of companies Major Energy
acts as a successor to) in the United States charged a variable
rate for electricity or gas by Major Energy during the applicable
statute of limitations period up to and including the date of
judgment.
The Company moved this case to the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland (Case No. 1:21-cv-03251-MJM) and in
December 2023 filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
The Company is vigorously defending this matter; however, given the
current early stage of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome
of this case at this time.
Via Renewables Inc. is an independent retail energy services. It
offers its services under the Electricity Maine, Electricity N.H.,
Major Energy, Provider Power Massachusetts, Spark Energy, and Verde
Energy brands.
VIA RENEWABLES: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Foote Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Via Renewables 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 1, 2024, that Electricity N.H.
continues to defend itself from the Foote Telephone Consumer class
suit in the United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire.
On December 18, 2023, Foote v. Electricity N.H., LLC ("ENH"), a
purported Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") class
action, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Hampshire.
Plaintiff claims that calls made to her violated the TCPA.
Plaintiff purports to assert claims on her own behalf and a
putative class of individuals to whom calls using a prerecorded or
artificial voice message regarding ENH's services were placed
during the period of September 1, 2019, through September 1, 2023.
ENH only operates in New Hampshire and no other states.
The Company denies Plaintiff's allegations and intends to
vigorously defend against her claims.
Via Renewables Inc. is an independent retail energy services. It
offers its services under the Electricity Maine, Electricity N.H.,
Major Energy, Provider Power Massachusetts, Spark Energy, and Verde
Energy brands.
VICOR CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Massachusetts Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Vicor Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 31, 2023, that on July 25, 2024, a purported
stockholder of the company filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
the company, the company's Chief Executive Officer, President and
Chairman, the company's Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer,
Secretary and Director and the company's Vice President of Global
Sales and Marketing and Director.
The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 due to allegedly false and
misleading statements during earnings calls in 2023 about the
company's commercial relationship with an existing customer. The
complaints seek damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.
The plaintiffs are in the process of serving their complaints, and
no substantive proceedings have taken place.
Vicor Corp. is into the manufacture of electronic components and is
based in Andover, MA.
VICOR CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vicor Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 31, 2023, that on July 11, 2024, purported
stockholders of the company filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the company and the company's Chief Executive Officer,
President and Chairman.
Vicor Corp. is into the manufacture of electronic components and is
based in Andover, MA.
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Hardy et al. Sue Over Undisclosed Fuel Tank Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAGGER HARDY, ANDREW MONTEMAYOR, NANCY PICKETT, GERI DARROW, and
LUIS VITERI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/a
AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN AG, and AUDI AG, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-08251 (D.N.J., August 2, 2024) arises from Defendants'
failure to disclose the material facts and safety concerns to
purchasers and lessees of the 2015-2020 Volkswagen Golf, 2015-2020
Audi A3, and 2022-2024 Volkswagen Taos vehicles.
The Plaintiffs bring this consumer class action lawsuit because
Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold the said
vehicles without disclosing the existence of a troubling defect
that jeopardizes the safety of Class Vehicle drivers, passengers,
and other drivers and pedestrians. Defendants sold these with a
3-year/36,000-mile or a 4-year/50,000-mile New Vehicle Limited
Warranty that purports to cover the fuel tank, suction jet pump,
and related components. However, owners and lessees have often
complained that their Fuel Tank components requiring repair or
replacement are refused a sufficient repair, even when within the
warranty period. Moreover, the Defendants' failure to disclose the
defect has caused Plaintiffs and putative class members to lose the
use of their vehicles and/or incur costly repairs that have
conferred an unjust substantial benefit upon Defendants, says the
suit.
Based in Wolfsburg, Germany, Volkswagen AG designs, engineers,
manufactures, tests, markets, supplies, sells and distributes
Volkswagen, Skoda, and some Audi-branded vehicles and parts for
those vehicles worldwide, including in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
Natalie Lesser, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
apark@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
nlesser@bm.net
- and -
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com
VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Ravarino Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial 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 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Ravarino class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut.
Litigation includes Ravarino, et al. v. Voya Financial, Inc., et
al. (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:21-cv-01658)(filed
December 14, 2021). In this putative class action, the plaintiffs
allege that the named defendants breached their fiduciary duties of
prudence and loyalty in the administration of the Voya 401(k)
Savings Plan.
The plaintiffs claim that the named defendants did not exercise
proper prudence in their management of allegedly poorly performing
investment options, including proprietary funds, and passed
excessive investment-management and other administrative fees for
proprietary and non-proprietary funds onto plan participants.
The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in
self-dealing through the inclusion of the Voya Stable Value Option
into the plan offerings and by setting the "crediting rate" for
participants' investment in the Stable Value Fund artificially low
in relation to Voya's general account investment returns in order
to maximize the spread and Voya's profits at the participants'
expense.
The complaint seeks disgorgement of unjust profits as well as costs
incurred.
On June 13, 2023, the Court issued a ruling granting in part and
denying in part Voya's motion to dismiss.
The court largely dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary
duty.
The remaining claims concern allegations of breaches of the ERISA
prohibited transactions rule and a claim for failure to monitor the
Voya Small Cap Growth fund.
The Company continues to deny the allegations, which it believes
are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
WARNER MUSIC: Seeks to Seal Exhibits in Hall Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HALL, an individual;
and LANCE HOPPEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., a Delaware Corporation;
WARNER MUSIC INC., a Delaware Corporation; and WARNER RECORDS INC.,
a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00457 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order directing the clerk to
maintain Exhibits B, F, G, H, I, and K under seal, including in
light of the limited redactions reflected in the concurrently filed
proposed public versions of Exhibits B, G, and H.
The Defendants contend that they have a compelling interest in
maintaining under seal limited portions of Exhibits B, G, and H, as
well as Exhibits F, I, and K in their entirety. Public disclosure
of these materials would reveal highly sensitive commercial
information about royalty payments and recording contract terms
that would harm Defendants' standing with respect to its
competitors and in future negotiations with artists, as well as
violate the privacy interests of absent class members.
Warner is an American multinational entertainment and record label
conglomerate.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LpOfzq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lucas T. Elliot, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLP
150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1900
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 251-5550
E-mail: lelliot@fbtlaw.com
- and -
Rollin A. Ransom, Esq.
Sean A. Commons, Esq.
Lauren M. De Lilly, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 896-6000
E-mail: rransom@sidley.com
scommons@sidley.com
ldelilly@sidley.com
WARREN GENERAL: Removes Brunecz Suit to W.D. of Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JEFF BRUNECZ; and JULIE ANN CHAPMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WARREN GENERAL HOSPITAL, Defendant, filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Warren County (Case No. 281-2024) to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
July 26, 2024.
The clerk of court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00203-SPB. The case is assigned to Judge
Susan Paradise Baxter.
Warren General Hospital provides general medical and surgical
hospital services. The Company offers cancer, cosmetic, dental,
diabetes and nutrition, emergency, imaging, laboratory,
respiratory, and surgical services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY
1650 Market St., 52nd Flr
One Liberty Place
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 575-3895
Email: phoward@smbb.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Aurora L. Hardin, Esq.
KNOX MCLAUGHLIN GORNALL & SENNETT P.C.
120 West 10th Street
Erie, PA 16501
Telephone: (814) 459-2800
Email: ahardin@kmgslaw.com
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the ERISA-related class suit in the District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On July 29, 2022, a former Wintrust employee filed a class action
in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
asserting claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") against Wintrust Financial Corporation.
Plaintiff alleges Wintrust breached its fiduciary duty in the
selection of BlackRock Target Date funds for inclusion in its
401(k) plan, that Wintrust failed to monitor the performance of
those funds, and in the alternative, Wintrust should be liable for
breach of trust.
Plaintiff's sole basis for the allegations is that BlackRock Target
Date funds allegedly performed more poorly than two comparable
funds over a three-year period.
Wintrust is one of several public companies that were sued on
identical grounds within the same week by the same plaintiff's law
firm.
On November 8, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the entire
complaint.
On July 14, 2023, the District Court granted Wintrust's motion to
dismiss and gave Plaintiff until August 2, 2023 to file an amended
complaint.
Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint which Wintrust moved to
dismiss on September 14, 2023.
The Company believes plaintiff's allegations continue to be legally
and factually meritless and otherwise lack sufficient information
to estimate the amount of any potential liability.
Wintrust Financial Corp. is a financial holding company that
operates chartered community banks in Northern Illinois and
Southern Wisconsin. Wintrust Bank N.A. is a federally-chartered
bank and a subsidiary of WFC. Bank of America is an American
multinational investment bank and financial services company.[BN]
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Mortgage Fair Lending Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the mortgage fair lending class suit in the
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On May 25, 2022, a Wintrust Mortgage customer filed a putative
class action and asserted individual claims against Wintrust
Mortgage and Wintrust Financial Corporation in the District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.
Plaintiff alleges that Wintrust Mortgage discriminated against
black/African American borrowers and brings class claims under the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Sections 1981 and 1982 under Chapter
42 of the United States Code; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
Plaintiff also asserts individual claims under theories of
promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract.
On September 23, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the
entire suit and the court granted that motion to dismiss on
September 27, 2023 and gave Plaintiff until October 20, 2023 to
file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint.
Wintrust moved to dismiss the amended complaint on November 21,
2023.
Wintrust vigorously disputes these allegations, believing them to
be legally and factually meritless, and Wintrust otherwise lacks
sufficient information to estimate the amount of any potential
liability.
Wintrust Financial Corp. is a financial holding company that
operates chartered community banks in Northern Illinois and
Southern Wisconsin. Wintrust Bank N.A. is a federally-chartered
bank and a subsidiary of WFC. Bank of America is an American
multinational investment bank and financial services company.[BN]
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Settlement Hearing in PAGA Suit Set for Oct. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the California PAGA
class suit settlement hearing is scheduled on October 4, 2024.
On May 24, 2022, a former Wintrust Mortgage employee filed a
California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") suit, not
individually, but as representative of all Wintrust Mortgage's
California hourly employees, against Wintrust Mortgage in the
Superior Court of San Diego County, California.
Plaintiff alleges Wintrust Mortgage failed to provide: (i) accurate
sick leave accrual and pay; (ii) overtime wages; (iii) accurately
itemized wage statements; (iv) meal breaks and meal premiums; (v)
timely payment of earned wages; (vi) payment of all earned wages;
and (vii) payment of all vested vacation hours.
Wintrust Mortgage disputes the validity of Plaintiff’s claims and
believes, to the extent there were defects in complying with
California law governing the payment of compensation to Plaintiff,
such errors would have been de minimis.
Plaintiff also has an arbitration agreement with a collective and
class action waiver and on January 19, 2023,
Wintrust Mortgage moved to compel arbitration.
The court stayed litigation pending mediation, which was held on
May 13, 2024.
The parties agreed to settle the dispute for an immaterial amount.
A hearing for court approval of the settlement has been set for
October 4, 2024.
Wintrust Financial Corp. is a financial holding company that
operates chartered community banks in Northern Illinois and
Southern Wisconsin. Wintrust Bank N.A. is a federally-chartered
bank and a subsidiary of WFC. Bank of America is an American
multinational investment bank and financial services company.[BN]
WOLFSPEED INC: Cadriel Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ricky Cadriel, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WOLFSPEED, INC. a North Carolina
Corporation; EDGAR BUSTAMANTE, an individual; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV439054 was removed from the California
Superior Court in and for Santa Clara County, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 16,
2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-05314.
The Plaintiff alleges Defendants did not pay appropriate overtime
wages "at times" throughout the class period but does not allege
any facts about the alleged violation. The Plaintiff alleges
Defendants failed to pay minimum wages "at times" throughout the
class period, but again fails to allege specific facts. The
Plaintiff alleges Wolfspeed "at times" failed to provide
appropriate meal and rest periods when employees worked more than
five-hour shifts, and "at times" failed to provide premium pay. The
Plaintiff alleges Defendants did not timely pay wages to employees
who left Wolfspeed in the three years before the filing of the
Complaint through the present. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants
failed to give Plaintiff and the putative class members accurate
wage statements from May 16, 2023 to the present. The Plaintiff
alleges Defendants "at times" failed pay employees for their
work-related use of personal items, including cellular phone usage.
The Plaintiff alleges Defendants did not pay his and other putative
class members who left the company their vested vacation pay for at
least four years prior to the filing of the Complaint.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Aaron A. Buckley, Esq.
Nora J. Steinhagen, Esq.
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor
San Diego, CA 92101-8285
Phone: 619-237-5200
Facsimile: 619-615-0700
Email: aaron.buckley@quarles.com
nora.steinhagen@quarles.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***