/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240828.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 28, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 173
Headlines
260 ELIZABETH: Commercial Space Violates ADA, Lawrence Suit Says
310 BOWERY: Marin Class Cert. Telephone Conference Set for Oct. 29
3D SYSTEMS: Oct. 21 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ADVANCE STORES: Appeals Judgment Bid Denial in Birthwright Suit
AJAY GLASS: Filing for Conditional Certification Due Jan. 13, 2025
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Guo Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Snow Antitrust Suit in California
ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Two Securities Suits in California
ALLY FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Sheridan Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in California Court
ASPEN DENTAL: Fiorentino Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
AT&T CORP: Leon Sues Over Antitrust Violations
AURA HOME INC: Manos Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
AUTO GLASS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 5, 2025
BRP US INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Russo Due Nov. 14, 2025
BUFFALO, NY: Class Cert Hearing in Black Lover Suit Set for Dec. 12
CANOPY GROWTH: Turpel Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
CATHY MURILLO: Boring Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
CBIZ INC: Continues to Defend MOVEit Customer Data Security Suit
CHARLES RIVER: State Teachers Retirement Appeals Case Dismissal
CHEMOURS CO: Continues to Defend Drinking Water Contamination Suit
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought
CONSUMER LEGAL: Senderovic Files FCRA Suit in D. Connecticut
CONSUMERINFO.COM INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Cox Suit
CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Faces Harlan Suit Over CrowdStrike Outage
CSA SERVICE: Fails to Pay Engineers' OT Wages, Heinz Says
CWPVA INC: Robertson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
DAYTON CORRECTIONAL: Terry's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed
DENTSPLY SIRONA: SAFPPF Suit Over Distributor Pricing Ongoing
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Securities Suit Over Merger Ongoing
DESALES UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Filing in Keenhol Due April 11, 2025
DREXEL BUILDING: Bid to Certify Classes in Kidd Due July 18, 2025
ECOMMERCE WORLD: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Knowles Suit Says
EMBANET-COMPASS: Must File Class Cert Response by Sept. 13
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Continues to Defend Late Fees Class Suit
ERIC MICHAEL: Jacobs Class Cert. Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
EVERCOMMERCE INC: Continues to Defend Gusinsky Revocable Class Suit
EXTRACTION OIL: C & M Appeals Court Ruling to 10th Cir.
FAY SERVICING: Ellery Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal to 11th Circuit
FRANKLIN & MARSHALL: Class Cert Filing in Doyle Due April 25, 2025
FREESE II INC: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Tucker Claims
FUNKO INC: Nov. 15 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
GUITARS ON MAIN: Walkup Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Randall Says
HERTZ CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 29, 2025
HIGHLAND NOODLES: Faces Yu Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Tex.
HILLMAN BEER: Venclauskas Hits Unpaid Wages, Tip Theft
HOPPIN LLC: Bustamente Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
HPC INDUSTRIAL: Longley Suit Removed to E.D. California
IDAHO: Rossow Seeks to Seal Class Certification Memo
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Faces Shareholder Suit in WI Court
KOOTENAI HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Licha Alleges
LDA PIZZA INC: Perez Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Angus Class Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Meade Class Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Morgan Class Suit in Texas
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Provisional Settlement in Glover for Court OK
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Provisional Settlement in TVPX Suit for Court OK
LIVE VENTURES: Continues to Defend Sieggreen Class Suit
LIVE VENTURES: Mediation in Sanchez Suit Set for Oct. 30
MATCH GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Oksayan Class Suit
MAXIMUS INC: Continues to Defend Garcia Class Suit
MCCALLA RAYMER LEIBERT: Marques Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
MCLAREN CENTRAL: Reeves Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MENOS US: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Knowles Suit Alleges
NATIONAL INSPECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Thurlow Says
NEW YORK: General Pre-Trial Management Order Entered in O.M. Suit
NOVA HOME: Savinova Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 2nd Cir.
SCHMIDT BAKING: Silva Appeals Court Order Compelling Arbitration
SSR MINING: Faces Akhras Securities Suit in Colorado
SSR MINING: Faces Jones Shareholder Suit in Canadian Court
SSR MINING: Faces Mutat Shareholder Suit in Canadian Court
SSR MINING: Faces Padley Shareholder Suit in Canadian Court
SSR MINING: Liang Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Ontario Court
STURM RUGER & CO: Faces Jones Class Suit in Connecticut
SUMMIT HEALTH: Stewart Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Status
TGINESIS LLC: Adewol Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay Specialists' OT Wages, McVey Says
UNITED STATES GYPSUM: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
UNITED WATER: Court Allows Expert to Testify via Zoom in Knott Suit
*********
260 ELIZABETH: Commercial Space Violates ADA, Lawrence Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NANA QUEENIE LAWRENCE v. 260 ELIZABETH STREET OWNER LLC, T-SHIRT
GIRLS LLC and PERFECTWHITETEE, Case No. 1:24-cv-06245 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 19, 2024) is a class action seeking declaratory, injunctive,
and equitable relief, as well as monetary damages and attorney's
fees, costs, and expenses, to redress Defendants' unlawful
disability discrimination against the Plaintiff, in violation of
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its
implementing regulation, the New York State Executive Law, and the
Administrative Code of the City of New York.
On Sept. 9, 2023, the Plaintiff attempted to access the business.
She discovered that the vestibule is not navigable by wheelchair at
Defendants' place of public accommodation that prevents and/or
restricts access to the Plaintiff. The Defendants have and continue
to discriminate against the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
disabled individuals by failing to provide accessible facilities on
or before Jan. 26, 19921 in violation of the ADA, the suit says.
Allegedly, the Plaintiff is being deprived of the meaningful choice
of freely visiting the same accommodations readily available to the
general public, and the Plaintiff is further deterred and
discouraged from additional travel due to Defendants' ongoing
non-compliance with the ADA.
Ms. Lawrence is incapable of moving around outside of her home
without assistance and a wheelchair. She has further restrictions
speaking, caring for herself, and performing other tasks associated
with daily living.
260 Elizabeth is the owner of the property located at 262 Elizabeth
Street, City of New York, County of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica E. Soultanian-Braunstein, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP
116 Jackson Avenue
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
E-mail: JSB@BellLG.com
310 BOWERY: Marin Class Cert. Telephone Conference Set for Oct. 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINA MARIN, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. RICHARD AURIGEMMA, 310
BOWERY GROUP LLC, and EPSTEINS BAR LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01340-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered
a telephone conference scheduling order as follows:
1. The initial case management conference scheduled for Aug. 19,
2024 is cancelled.
2. By separate order, the Court will enter the parties' proposed
case management plan ("PCMP").
3. In light of the PCMP, Plaintiff's motion for an order
compelling
The Defendants to produce certain documents and information
for
Plaintiff and putative collective members is denied as moot.
4. A telephone conference is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 29,
2024
at 10:00 am on the Court's conference line to discuss the
status
of fact discovery, the parties' interest in a settlement
conference with the Court, and, if appropriate, a briefing
schedule for Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class
certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w44zWD at no extra
charge.[CC]
3D SYSTEMS: Oct. 21 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE MATTERS
TO:
ALL OWNERS OF COMMON STOCK OF 3D SYSTEMS CORPORATION ("3D SYSTEMS"
OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF APRIL 30, 2024 ("CURRENT 3D SYSTEMS
STOCKHOLDERS") (EXCLUDING THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, THE OFFICERS
AND DIRECTORS OF 3D SYSTEMS, MEMBERS OF THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILIES,
AND THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS, AND
ANY ENTITY IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS HAVE OR HAD A
CONTROLLING INTEREST) AND THEIR SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY, AS YOUR
RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE LITIGATION. THIS
NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF
STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT
INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.
IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE
DERIVATIVE MATTERS, STOCKHOLDERS OF 3D SYSTEMS AND 3D SYSTEMS WILL
BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE DERIVATIVE MATTERS ARE NOT A "CLASS ACTION"
AND NO INDIVIDUAL STOCKHOLDER HAS THE RIGHT TO BE COMPENSATED AS A
RESULT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DERIVATIVE MATTERS.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit of the State of South
Carolina, County of York (the "Court") that a proposed Settlement1
has been reached between the parties to a consolidated stockholder
derivative action captioned In re 3D Systems Corp. S'holder
Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 2021-CP-46-02308 (S.C. Ct. of
Com. Pl. York Cnty.) (the "Derivative Action"). The terms of the
proposed Settlement of the Derivative Action are set forth in the
Stipulation and the exhibits attached thereto. In addition to the
Derivative Action, if approved, the Settlement will also resolve
the following related derivative matters: (i) In re 3D Systems
Corp. S'holder Derivative Litigation, Master File No.
1:21-cv-03389-NGG-TAM (E.D.N.Y.); (ii) Joseph F. Fernicola v.
Malissia R. Clinton, et al., Index No. 512613/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Kings Cnty.); and (iii) a stockholder inspection demand pursuant to
8 Del. C. § 220 dated September 16, 2022(collectively, with the
Derivative Action, the "Derivative Matters"). This summary should
be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to, the text of the Stipulation, including Exhibit A
thereto, which has been filed with the Court and which was also
filed, along with this Notice, as part of a Form 8-K with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission by the Company on July 25,
2024.
The Derivative Matters variously allege claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and other related claims against the Individual
Defendants in connection with the Individual Defendants' alleged:
(i) failure to integrate Cimatron Ltd. after its acquisition by the
Company for $97 million, followed by the sale of Cimatron Ltd. for
$65 million; (ii) failure to properly account for the Cimatron Ltd.
sale due to internal controls deficiencies; (iii) failure to
properly recognize revenue and disclose the Company's collaborative
arrangement with United Therapeutics Corporation; (iv) making of
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's fourth
quarter 2020 performance; (v) failure to monitor and remediate
quality control problems with powder management units used for the
Company's high-end DMP Factory printers, and subsequent failure to
account for this in inventory disclosures; (vi) implementation of a
restructuring plan that included a nearly 20% reduction of the
Company's workforce; (vii) conscious disregard of internal controls
deficiencies and making of false and misleading statements
attesting to the adequacy of same; and (viii) failure to provide
adequate oversight of the Company to prevent any of the above. The
Individual Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, all
allegations of wrongdoing or liability asserted in the Derivative
Matters.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement set forth in the
Stipulation, 3D Systems agrees to adopt and/or maintain certain
Corporate Governance Reforms that are set forth in Exhibit A to the
Stipulation within ninety (90) days of issuance of final approval
of the Settlement and shall be maintained for a period of no less
than three (3) years (the "Commitment Term"), except that because
the Company's Annual Stockholder Meeting was rescheduled from May
2024 to August 27, 2024, certain Corporate Governance Reforms that
were scheduled to become effective at the May 2024 Annual
Stockholder Meeting will instead become effective at the Company's
next Annual Stockholder Meeting. The Board will adopt resolutions
and amend committee Charters and/or By-Laws to ensure adherence to
the Corporate Governance Reforms set forth in Exhibit A attached to
the Stipulation, which will remain in effect for the Commitment
Term; provided, however, that upon the expiration of the Commitment
Term, the independent members of the Company's Board shall review
each corporate governance provision set out in the Corporate
Governance Reforms and, by unanimous vote on each corporate
governance provision, may elect to discontinue a corporate
governance provision ("First Review"). Any corporate governance
provisions not discontinued pursuant to the First Review shall
remain in effect for an additional one (1) year. The result of the
First Review shall be disclosed in the Company's next regularly
scheduled filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"). The corporate governance provisions that remain after the
First Review shall be reviewed one (1) year later in the same
manner and may be discontinued upon unanimous vote of the
independent members of the Board ("Second Review"), and the result
shall be disclosed in the Company's next regularly scheduled filing
with the SEC. Any corporate governance provisions not discontinued
pursuant to the Second Review shall remain in effect for an
additional one (1) year term, or longer at the Board's discretion
exercising its business judgment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a
corporate governance provision may be discontinued or modified
during the Commitment Term if required by applicable law,
regulation, or fiduciary duty to 3D Systems ("Fiduciary Out"). If a
corporate governance provision is eliminated or modified per the
Fiduciary Out, the Board shall within twenty (20) business days
adopt a replacement provision that accomplishes substantially the
same objective; provided, however, that no such replacement
provision need be adopted if, in the reasonable good faith business
judgment of a majority of the Board's independent directors, it is
not possible to do so in a manner consistent with the law. Any
material changes made pursuant to the Fiduciary Out shall be
disclosed in the Company's next periodic filing with the SEC. Any
other changes pursuant to the Fiduciary Out shall be reported by
the Company after the Commitment Term as part of the results of the
vote of the independent members of the Board described herein.
Additionally, 3D Systems and its Board acknowledge that the
adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the Corporate
Governance Reforms, as detailed in Exhibit A to the Stipulation,
confer substantial corporate benefits upon the Company under
Delaware's corporate benefit doctrine, and that the filing,
prosecution, and resolution of the Derivative Matters were a
substantial factor in the adoption, implementation, and maintenance
of the Corporate Governance Reforms. A full recitation of the
Corporate Governance Reforms can be found by reviewing the
Stipulation and Exhibit A at the following website:
https://www.3dsystems.com/investor.
Stockholders' Counsel believe that the Settlement confers
substantial benefits on 3D Systems and its stockholders, including,
inter alia, the adoption of the following categories of Corporate
Governance Reforms (further detailed in Exhibit A to the
Stipulation): (i) enhanced board independence and oversight
reforms; (ii) Audit Committee refreshment and enhancement; (iii)
mandatory quarterly reporting from management to the Board
regarding acquisitions, divestitures, employment-related changes,
the Company's financial performance, and cash flow information
presented in the Company's public filings; (iv) separation of the
roles of Chief Executive Officer and chair of the Board; (v)
adoption and implementation of a Clawback Policy on October 2, 2023
requiring the reimbursement or forfeiture of excess incentive-based
compensation received by the Company's executive officers in the
event of an accounting restatement (attached as Exhibit A-1 to the
Stipulation); (vi) formalization of a Mergers & Acquisitions
Committee and the adoption and implementation of a new policy
regarding same (attached as Exhibit A-2 to the Stipulation); (vii)
formalization of a Disclosure Committee and the adoption and
implementation of a new policy regarding same (attached as Exhibit
A-3 to the Stipulation); (viii) enhancements to the duties of the
Chief Compliance Officer; and (ix) other enhancements to policies
and oversight designed to reduce opportunities and incentives to
commit similar wrongdoing as alleged in the Derivative Matters.
Based on the substantial benefits Stockholders' Counsel's efforts
and the Settlement have conferred and will confer on the Company,
the Individual Defendants agreed to cause their insurance carriers
to pay an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid to
Stockholders' Counsel in the total amount of $1,950,000.00 (the
"Fee and Expense Amount"), and agreed not to oppose an application
by Stockholders to the Court for reasonable service awards not to
exceed $2,500.00 per Stockholder, to be paid out of such Fee and
Expense Amount awarded by the Court. All of the terms of the
Settlement, including the payment of the Fee and Expense Amount and
the Service Awards, are subject to approval by the Court.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, a hearing will be held on October 21,
2024 at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable William A. McKinnon of the
Court of Common Pleas, 16th Judicial Circuit, for the State of
South Carolina, Moss Justice Center, 1675 York Hwy, York, South
Carolina 29745, to (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement of
the Derivative Matters on the terms and conditions provided for in
the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best
interests of 3D Systems and its stockholders; (ii) hear and rule on
any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Judgment,
the proposed Fee and Expense Amount, and/or Service Awards that are
timely submitted as specified below; (iii) determine whether to
approve the agreed Fee and Expense Amount and Service Awards, and
(iv) determine whether the Court should enter the Judgment,
attached as Exhibit C to the Stipulation, which would dismiss with
prejudice the Derivative Matters and release the Released Claims.
Any Current 3D Systems Stockholder may object to the Settlement of
the Derivative Matters, the proposed Judgment, the proposed Fee and
Expense Amount, and/or Service Award, and may also (but need not)
appear in person or by his, her, or its attorney at the Settlement
Hearing. To object, such stockholders must submit a written
statement explaining the stockholder's objection(s) and the reasons
for such objection(s) and shall also: (a) submit a written
statement identifying such stockholder's name, address, and
telephone number, and, if represented by counsel, the name,
address, and telephone number of counsel; (b) state the case name
and number, In re 3D Systems Corp. S'holder Derivative Litigation,
Lead Case No. 2021-CP-46-02308 (S.C. Ct. of Com. Pl. York Cnty.);
(c) provide proof of current ownership of 3D Systems common stock,
as well as documentary evidence of when such stock ownership was
acquired; (d) submit any documentation in support of such
objection(s), including clearly identifying any and all evidence
that would be presented at the Settlement Hearing in connection
with such objection(s); (e) identify any case, by name and court,
in which the objector or his, her, or its attorney, if any, has
objected to a settlement in the last three (3) years; and (f)
include a proof of service. If the stockholder (whether personally
or through counsel) wishes to appear at the Settlement Hearing, he,
she, or it must also include a statement of intention to appear at
the Settlement Hearing. Such materials must be filed with the Clerk
of the Court of Common Pleas, 16th Judicial Circuit, for the State
of South Carolina, County of York, and delivered by hand or by
First Class Mail to the following addresses, postmarked at least
fourteen (14) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing:
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Derivative Action
ALSTON & BIRD
Elizabeth Gingold Clark
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Counsel for Defendants
Any Person or entity who fails to object in the manner described
above shall be: (i) deemed to have waived any objection to the
Settlement, Judgment, Fee and Expense Amount, and/or Service
Awards; (ii) barred from raising such objection in this Derivative
Action, or any other action or proceeding; and (iii) bound by the
Final Order and Judgment and the releases of claims therein.
Current 3D Systems Stockholders that have no objection to the
Settlement, Judgment, Fee and Expense Amount, and/or Service Awards
do not need to appear at the Settlement Hearing or take any other
action.
Inquiries regarding the proposed Settlement also may be made to
counsel for the plaintiffs in the Derivative Action: Michael I.
Fistel, Jr., Johnson Fistel, LLP, 40 Powder Springs Street,
Marietta, GA 30064, telephone: (470) 632-6000.
DATED: July 25, 2024
BY ORDER OF THIS COURT
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE
16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
COUNTY OF YORK
DO NOT CONTACT THE CLERK OF THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE
ADVANCE STORES: Appeals Judgment Bid Denial in Birthwright Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order
in the lawsuit entitled Hugh Birthwright, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Advance
Stores Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00593, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought against the Defendant for its failure to pay timely wages
in violation of the New York Labor Law.
On Apr. 12, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge
Gary R. Brown on June 27, 2024.
The Court held that the New York Labor Law Sections 191 and 198
provide for a private right of action, and the Plaintiff's Section
191 claim may proceed.
The appellate case is captioned Advance Stores Company, Inc. v.
Birthwright, Case No. 24-2111, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on August 9, 2024. [BN]
Defendant-Petitioner ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC. is represented
by:
Jeffrey W. Brecher, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
58 South Service Road, Suite 250
Melville, NY 11747
AJAY GLASS: Filing for Conditional Certification Due Jan. 13, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gardy Louis, v. Ajay Glass
& Mirror Co., Inc., et al. Case No. 3:24-cv-00462-BKS-ML
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a uniform
pretrial scheduling order as follows:
-- Any motion to join any person as a party to this action shall
be
made on or before Oct. 31, 2024.
-- Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be made
on
or before Oct. 31, 2024.
-- The parties are directed to file a status report on or before
Dec.
2, 2024.
-- Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures are to be exchanged by Aug.
7,
2024.
-- Initial Written Discovery Demands must be served by Sept. 13,
2024.
-- All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before
Aug.
1, 2025.
-- Motions for Conditional Certification are to be filed on or
before
Jan. 13, 2025. Motions for Class Certification are to be filed
on
or before May 30, 2025.
Ajay Glass operates as a glass wall system contractors.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dDaBtF at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Guo Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAORAN GUO and ZIJUN GUO,
v. SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, DIRECTOR TAMIKA GRAY, and DEPUTY
DIRECTOR SCOTT VELEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-04716-PAE-SLC (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order referring the Guo suit
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.
Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Petition was due by Aug. 8,
2024. On Aug. 1, 2024, counsel for Defendants filed a notice of
appearance. To date, however, Defendants have not responded to the
Petition, and the deadline to do so has passed. As a one-time
courtesy, the Court sua sponte extends this deadline, and directs
Defendants to respond to the Petition by Aug. 23, 2024.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to
Plaintiffs.
Alejandro Mayorkas was sworn in as Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security by President Biden on Feb. 2, 2021.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1KW338 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Snow Antitrust Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that it is
facing an antitrust action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California filed on May 3, 2021 by an
individual named Misty Snow on behalf of herself and a putative
class of similarly situated individuals seeking monetary damages
and injunctive relief relating to the alleged market activities in
alleged clear aligner and intraoral scanner markets.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 30, 2021 adding new
plaintiffs and various state law claims. Plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on October 21, 2021. On March 2, 2022, Plaintiffs
filed a third amended complaint. On October 3, 2022, Plaintiffs
filed a fourth amended complaint. On May 18, 2023, the court
granted plaintiffs leave to file a fifth amended complaint. The
amended complaints added allegations based on Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. On February 21, 2024, the court granted Align's motion
for summary judgment on the claims related to Section 2
allegations. The court entered judgment for the Section 2 and
related state law claims on March 22, 2024. Plaintiffs have
appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellants' opening brief was filed July 15, 2024.
Align's response brief is due September 27, 2024 and
Plaintiff-Appellants' reply brief is due October 18, 2024.
Align Technology is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners
and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Two Securities Suits in California
-------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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, 2024, that the company and/or its
subsidiaries are defending two putative class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, "Holland
Hewitt v. Allstate Life Insurance Company" filed May 2020, and
"Farley v. Lincoln Benefit Life Company" filed December 2020,
following the sale of Allstate Life Insurance Company to Lincoln.
On April 19, 2023, the district court certified a class in Farley.
Lincoln is appealing the district court's order in the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
On March 27, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued his Findings and
Recommendations denying class certification in Hewitt. Plaintiffs
filed their objection to the Magistrate's recommendation. In these
cases, plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants failed to
comply with certain California statutes which address contractual
grace periods and lapse notice requirements for certain life
insurance policies. Plaintiffs claim that these statutes apply to
life insurance policies that existed before the statutes' effective
date. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.
The Allstate Corporation is an insurance company, headquartered in
Glenview, Illinois.
ALLY FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Sheridan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL C. SHERIDAN, on
behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALLY
FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00616 (S.D.W. Va), the Hon. Judge
Frank Volk entered an order granting Ally's motion to Dismiss to
the extent of Plaintiffs claims under West Virginia Code sections
46A-2-127, 46A2-127(g), 46A-2-127(d) and 46A-2-124(f), and denied
as to its residue.
-- Mr. Sheridan's motion for leave to file supplemental authority
[doc. 19] is granted. The dismissed claims may be plead anew with
sufficient allegations on or before Aug. 25, 2024. Inasmuch as the
Court has now ruled, Ally's motion for order staying discovery
pending resolution of its motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
Mr. Sheridan has failed to meet Rule 9(b)'s heightened standard. He
does not allege when or even how many times the alleged fraud
occurred. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Ally’s motion to dismiss
Mr. Sheridan's WVCCPA section 127 claims.
On Sept. 18, 2023, Mr. Sheridan instituted this action on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated.
Mr. Sheridan alleges violations under West Virginia Code sections
46A-2-127,1 46A-2-127(d),2 and 46A-2-127(g). In support, Mr.
Sheridan alleges Ally, through its TPPP(s), charged him a service
fee to process his requisite monthly payments despite no express
contractual or statutory permission to do so.
Ally provides financial services including car finance, online
banking via a direct bank, corporate lending, vehicle insurance,
mortgage loans, and other related financing services such as
installment sale and lease agreements.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YVuhWp at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 as of July 29, 2024, 17 putative
class action lawsuits have been filed against Altria in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
In November 2020, these lawsuits were consolidated into three
complaints (one on behalf of direct purchasers, one on behalf of
indirect purchasers and one on behalf of indirect resellers).
The consolidated lawsuits, as amended, cite the FTC administrative
complaint and allege that Altria violated Sections 1, 2 and/or 3 of
the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act and various state
antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws by
restraining trade and/or substantially lessening competition in the
U.S. closed-system electronic cigarette market.
Altria Group, Inc. is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco and cigarettes.
ASPEN DENTAL: Fiorentino Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Amy Fiorentino, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ASPEN DENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Case No. 24-CC-042272 was removed from the 13th Judicial Circuit
Court, Hillsborough County, Florida, to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 19, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01944.
This is a putative class action alleging a data security issue
involving potential personal health information ("PHI") and
personal identifying information ("PII"). The Plaintiff attempts to
assert two claims in her Complaint: negligence and breach of
fiduciary duty. Plaintiff purports to assert these claims on behalf
of a putative nationwide class: "All persons whose PII was accessed
and/or exfiltrated during the Data Breach Incident."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David B. Weinstein, Esq.
Kayli Smendec, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 318-5700
Facsimile: (813) 318-5900
Email: weinsteind@gtlaw.com
smendeck@gtlaw.com
AT&T CORP: Leon Sues Over Antitrust Violations
----------------------------------------------
Ray Leon; Richard Inza; Michael Inza; individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. AT&T, INC.; AT&T
CORPORATION; AT&T SERVICES, INC.; SCOTT T. FORD; GLENN H. HUTCHINS;
WILLIAM E. KENNARD; STEPHEN J. LUCZO; MARISSA A. MAYER; DAVID R.
MCATEE II; MICHAEL B. MCCALLISTER; BETH E. MOONEY; MATTHEW K. ROSE;
JOHN STANKEY; CYNTHIA B. TAYLOR; LUIS A. UBINAS; T-MOBILE USA,
INC.; ANDRE ALMEIDA; MARCELO CLAURE; SRIKANT M. DATAR; SRINIVASAN
GOPALAN; TIMOTHEUS HOTTGES; DR. CHRISTIAN P. ILLEK; JAMES J.
KAVANAUGH; RAPHAEL KUBLER; THORSTEN LANGHEIM; DOMINIQUE LEROY;
LETITIA A. LONG; MARK NELSON; MIKE SIEVERT; TERESA A. TAYLOR;
KELVIN R. WESTBROOK; DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG; TIMOTHEUS HOTTGES; DR.
FERRI ABOLHASSAN; BIRGIT BOHLE; SRINI GOPALAN; CHRISTIAN P. ILLEK;
THORSTEN LANGHEIM; DOMINIQUE LEROY; CLAUDIA NEMAT; VERIZON
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; CELLCO PARTNERSHIP dba VERIZON WIRELESS;
VERIZON SERVICES, CORP.; VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC.;
VITTORIO COLAO; SHELLYE L. ARCHAMBEAU; MARK T. BERTOLIN; ROXANNE S.
AUSTIN; MELANIE L. HEALEY; LAXMAN NARASIMHAN; CLARENCE OTIS, JR.;
DANIEL H. SCHULMAN; RODNEY E. SLATER; CAROL B. TOME; VANDANA
VENKATESH HANS VESTBERG; GREGORY G. WEAVER; Case No. 1:24-cv-02397
(D.D.C., Aug. 18, 2024), is brought unprecedented, with evidence of
antitrust violations by AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Deutsche
Telekom due to anticompetitive practices.
AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Deutsche Telekom (Deutsche Telekom is
the majority shareholder of T-Mobile US) (the "Defendants") have
systematically violated antitrust laws for over six years by
deliberately withholding standalone Wi-Fi calling and mobile data
services. Their anticompetitive practices--including tying
arrangements, forced sales, and predatory pricing--have allowed
them to maintain oligopolistic control over 97% of the U.S.
smartphone mobile market. This deliberate conduct has definitively
harmed the General Subscribers Class encompassing approximately 373
million major carrier subscribers.
The General Subscribers Class, represented by Ray Leon (AT&T),
Richard Inza (Verizon), and Michael Inza (T-Mobile), have suffered
from barriers to entry, restraint of trade, monopolistic practices,
and fraudulent misrepresentation. The Defendants' unauthorized use
of a competitor's patented technology has exacerbated these
antitrust violations, actively suppressing competition in the
telecommunications industry.
The Defendants have implemented a comprehensive anticompetitive
bundling strategy by tying Wi-Fi calling and mobile data services
to cellular calling and texting services. This practice has
effectively prevented the emergence of standalone Wi-Fi calling and
mobile data markets, despite the clear technical feasibility of
offering such services separately. Their bundling strategy serves
to maintain the Defendants' market power and inflated pricing
structures, violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act (unreasonable
restraint of trade) and Section 3 of the Clayton Act (exclusive
dealing and tying), says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are current subscribers of the Defendants' mobile
services or their respective Mobile Virtual Network Operators
(MVNOs).
AT&T, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business located in San Antonio, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Travis Pittman, Esq.
HOLMES, PITTMAN & HARAGUCHI, LLP
1140 3rd St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 329-3558
Email: jtpittman@hphattorneys.com
- and -
Sean Parmenter, Esq.
PARMENTER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PLLC
1401 21st St, Suite #10724
Sacramento, CA 95811
Phone: (925) 482-6515
Email: sean@parmenterip.com
AURA HOME INC: Manos Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Casey Manos and Calnen Swingen, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AURA HOME, INC. d/b/a
AURA FRAMES, Case No. 2024 CH 06591 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook 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-07401.
The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Aura digital frames and
uploaded photographs through the Aura app. They claim that
Defendant extracted and stored Plaintiffs' facial geometry when
Plaintiffs uploaded their photos to the Aura app. The Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant used Plaintiffs' facial geometry to identify
Plaintiffs in photos that contained an image of Plaintiffs' faces.
They contend that Defendant violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, when, Plaintiffs contend, Defendant
"possessed, collected, captured, stored, used, or otherwise
obtained--without first providing notice, obtaining informed
written consent, or publishing data retention policies--the
biometrics of the users of its Aura Frames mobile app."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jamie L. Filipovic, Esq.
Stacey Vucko, Esq.
O'HAGAN MEYER LLC
One E. Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312)422-6100
Email: jfilipovic@ohaganmeyer.com
svucko@ohaganmeyer.com
AUTO GLASS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 5, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA MOORE, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. AUTO GLASS
AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00566-TJC-SJH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered a case management and scheduling
order as follows:
Deadline for providing mandatory initial Aug. 19, 2024
disclosures:
Deadline for moving to join a party or Nov 5, 2024
amend the pleadings:
Deadline for moving for class certification May 5, 2025
Deadline for disclosing expert reports.
Plaintiff: May 5, 2025
Defendant: June 6, 2025
Rebuttal: July 14, 2025
Deadline for completing discovery and July 14, 2025
filing motions to compel:
Deadline for filing dispositive and July 31, 2025
Daubert motions:
Deadline for filing the joint final Nov. 13, 2025
pretrial statement and all other motions
including motions in limine:
Date and time of the final pretrial Nov. 19, 2025
conference: 10:00 AM
Auto Glass offers expert windshield replacement services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jhdHLP at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRP US INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Russo Due Nov. 14, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL RUSSO, et al, v.
BRP US INC, et al. Case No. 2:23-cv-01355-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order that:
1. The parties shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)
concerning initial disclosures by Sept. 13, 2024.
2. The parties may join additional parties and amend pleadings
without further leave of the court through Dec. 1, 2024.
3. The plaintiffs shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent
with Rule 26(a)(2) on or before Nov. 14, 2025. The defendants
shall disclose any expert witnesses consistent with Rule
26(a)(2) on or before Jan. 30, 2026. The plaintiffs shall
disclose any rebuttal expert witnesses consistent with Rule
26(a)(2) on or before Feb. 28, 2026.
4. All requests for discovery shall be served by a date
sufficiently early so that fact discovery can be completed by
Sept. 30, 2025, and expert discovery can be completed by
March
31, 2026.
5. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed
on
or before Nov. 14, 2025. Any response in opposition shall be
filed on or before Jan. 30, 2026. Any reply in support shall
be
filed on or before Feb. 28, 2026.
6. Any dispositive motions must be served and filed on or before
April 30, 2026. Any response in opposition shall be filed on
or
before June 1, 2026. Any reply in support shall be filed on
or
before June 15, 2026.
BRP US designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes
motorized recreational vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7gbB0y at no extra
charge.[CC]
BUFFALO, NY: Class Cert Hearing in Black Lover Suit Set for Dec. 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Black Love Resists, et
al., v. City of Buffalo, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00719 (W.D.N.Y.,
Filed June 28, 2018), the Hon. Judge Christina Clair Reiss entered
a scheduling order setting hearing on motions to certify class
filed by Black Love Resists in the Rust, Joseph Bonds, Jane Doe,
Dorethea Franklin, De'Jon Hall, Charles Palmer, Shaketa Redden,
Shirley Sarmiento, Taniqua Simmons, Ebony Yeldon on Thursday, Dec.
12, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Buffalo is a city in the U.S. state of New York and the county seat
of Erie County. It lies in Western New York at the eastern end of
Lake Erie, at the head of the Niagara River on the Canada–United
States border.[CC]
CANOPY GROWTH: Turpel Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER TURPEL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Christopher Turpel, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Canopy Growth Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-4302, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the U.S.
federal securities laws by allegedly making false or misleading
statements and omissions regarding the "BioSteel" business unit,
Canopy Growth's internal controls over accounting and financial
reporting, and the company's business, operations, and prospects.
On Jan. 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint.
On Mar. 7, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered
by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on July 17, 2024. The Plaintiffs' first
amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
The Court held that because the first amended complaint's
allegations, viewed together, do not supply strong circumstantial
evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness, claims must be
dismissed.
The appellate case is captioned In Re: Canopy Growth Securities
Litigation, Case No. 24-2121, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on August 12, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTOPHER TURPEL, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Christopher Phillip, Esq.
Taylor Tourek, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
CATHY MURILLO: Boring Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as P. Boring, v. Cathy
Murillo, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-07305-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order referring motion for class
certification to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott for a Report and
Recommendation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EMI9Mw at no extra
charge.[CC]
CBIZ INC: Continues to Defend MOVEit Customer Data Security Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBIZ 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 MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On November 10, 2023, CBIZ was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts by an individual claiming to be an
employee of a CBIZ client whose personally identifiable information
("PII") was compromised and stolen during a cyberattack CBIZ
experienced on or about May 31, 2023.
As a result of this incident, hackers were able to access and
download certain files from CBIZ’s MOVEit Transfer server.
The lawsuit alleges that CBIZ and Progress Software Corporation,
the owner of MOVEit Transfer, failed to adequately secure and
safeguard the individual's, and similarly situated employees of
CBIZ's clients, PII from unauthorized access.
The lawsuit seeks various remedies, including actual, compensatory,
and punitive damages, along with injunctive relief, costs, and
attorneys' fees.
On December 8, 2023, CBIZ was named as a defendant in a second
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by an individual making similar
claims and seeking similar remedies as in the first lawsuit
regarding the cyberattack CBIZ experienced on or about May 31,
2023.
Both cases were transferred into a multidistrict litigation, styled
as In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, pending
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (the "MDL").
To date, the MDL has over 180 cases against over 100 different
defendants, all with claims arising out of the cyberbreach by
hackers of Progress Software Corporation's MOVEit Transfer
software.
The cases in the MDL, including the cases against CBIZ, are in
their earliest stages, with a stay in place until the MDL Court
issues a scheduling order.
Due to the early stage of litigation, the Company is not able to
determine or predict the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits nor
reasonably provide an estimate or range of the possible outcome or
losses, if any.
Although the proceedings are subject to uncertainties in the
litigation process and the ultimate disposition of these
proceedings is not presently determinable, the Company intends to
vigorously defend these matters.
CBIZ is a corporation, with "more than 120 offices and 6,500 team
members," that provides "financial and benefits and insurance
services to organizations of all sizes, as well as individual
clients.[BN]
CHARLES RIVER: State Teachers Retirement Appeals Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO, et al. are taking an
appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Sharan
Coleman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Charles River Laboratories International,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11132-DJC, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 for making materially false and misleading
statements, as well as failing to disclose material adverse facts
about Charles River's business, operations, and prospects.
On July 18, 2023, the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio
filed a motion to appoint it as Lead Plaintiff in this case and to
approve its selection of Lead Counsel, which the Court granted
through an Order entered by Judge Denise J. Casper on Aug. 31,
2023.
On Nov. 14, 2023, Plaintiff State Teachers Retirement System of
Ohio filed an amended complaint.
On Jan. 15, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge Denise J. Casper on July 1, 2024.
The Court concluded that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 on this alternative basis and
also failed to plead a primary securities law violation under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
The appellate case is captioned State Teachers Retirement System of
Ohio v. Charles River Laboratories International, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 24-1705, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit, filed on August 9, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
are represented by:
Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
Brandon Fox, Esq.
Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
Donald R. Hall, Esq.
Pamela A. Mayer, Esq.
Carihanna Morrison, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
800 3rd Ave., 38th Fl.
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
- and –
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
1 Boston Pl., Ste. 2600
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
- and –
Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Esq.
Glen DeValerio, Esq.
ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
P.O. Box 67101
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
Telephone: (617) 999-6473
- and –
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park E., Ste. 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Defendants-Appellees CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INTERNATIONAL,
INC., et al. are represented by:
Charles Duggan, Esq.
Luca Marzorati, Esq.
David Brendan Toscano, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Ave.
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 450-4000
(212) 450-3660
(212) 450-4515
- and –
Mara Theophila, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
200 Clarendon St., 58th Fl.
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 535-4107
CHEMOURS CO: Continues to Defend Drinking Water Contamination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Company continues
to defend itself from the drinking water contamination class suit.
Also, in Alabama, a purported class action was filed in July 2022
in Alabama federal court by the Utilities Board of Tuskegee on
behalf of certain drinking water utilities against 3M, EID, Corteva
and the Company alleging contamination of drinking water.
The complaints allege negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance
and trespass.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as well as compensatory and
punitive damages.
In April 2023, Shelby County, Alabama and Talladega County,
Alabama, filed suit in Alabama state court against numerous carpet
manufacturers located near Dalton Georgia, suppliers, EID,
Chemours, and other defendants to be named later.
The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance and trespass in the
release by the carpet mills of PFAS compounds, including PFOA, into
the water sources used by the Counties to provide drinking water.
The Counties seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as
injunctive relief to remove PFAS from the water supply and prevent
alleged ongoing contamination.
In May 2023 the matter was removed to federal court.
In August 2023, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of
Gadsden, Alabama also filed suit in Alabama state court against the
Company, DuPont, Corteva and other suppliers to carpet mills in
Dalton Georgia, as well as against various landfill and waste
companies.
The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the
release of PFAS compounds, including PFOA, reaching the town's
water source. Gadsden seeks compensatory damages as well as
expenses, potential lost profits, punitive damages and injunctive
release.
These matters were stayed in September 2023 pending final approval
of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. Shelby County,
Talladega County, City of Gadsden and the Utilities Board of
Tuskegee as well as other water utilities that may be within the
class, filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action
Settlement and the matters are now proceeding.
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: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN JORDAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE COCA-COLA
COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00028-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order extending the expert discovery and class
certification deadlines as follows:
a. Deadline for Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures and Motion for
Class
Certification: 150 days after the Motion to Dismiss is
resolved.
b. Deadline for Plaintiff's Expert's Deposition: 180 days after
the
Motion to Dismiss is resolved.
c. Deadline for Defendant's Expert Disclosures and the
Opposition
to the Motion for Class Certification: 210 days after the
Motion
to Dismiss is resolved.
d. Deadline for the Reply to the Motion for Class Certification:
230 days after the Motion to Dismiss is resolved.
e. Deadline for Defendants' expert's deposition: 231 days after
the
Motion to Dismiss is resolved.
f. Deadline for completing discovery: 241 days after the Motion
to
Dismiss is resolved.
g. Deadline for any motions to dismiss, motions for summary
judgment, or for motions for judgment on the pleadings: 328
days
after the Motion to Dismiss is resolved.
h. Deadline for Jury Trial: To be determined or revisited based
on
when the Motion to Dismiss is resolved.
The Parties have conferred and agree that expert discovery and
class certification will be most productive following a decision on
Coca-Cola's Motion to Dismiss.
On Oct. 12, 2023, the Court issued the Case Management Order. The
Case Management Order requires Plaintiff to file any motion for
class certification no later than Sept. 19, 2024, Defendant to
respond in opposition by Nov. 18, 2024, and Plaintiff to reply by
Dec. 6, 2024.
On May 12, 2023, Coca-Cola filed a Motion to Dismiss that, if
granted, would fully resolve this matter.
On Feb. 22, 2024, the Court heard argument on the Motion to Dismiss
and thereafter granted it in part, dismissing Counts II, III, IV,
and VII, while reserving ruling on Counts I, V, and VI.
Coca-Cola manufactures, sells and markets soft drinks including
Coca-Cola, other non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups,
and alcoholic beverages.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cQGoNg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
HARVATH LAW GROUP, LLC
75 W Lockwood Ave Ste 1
Webster Grooves, MO 631119
Telephone: (314) 550-3717
E-mail: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Megan McCurdy, Esq.
STINSON LLP
1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
Kansas City, MO 64106-2150
Telephone: (816) 691-2649
E-mail: megan.mccurdy@stinson.com
- and -
Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
Jane Metcalf, Esq.
Dakotah M. Burns, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB &
TYLER LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-6710
Telephone: (212) 336-2000
E-mail: sazalesin@pbwt.com
jmetcalf@pbwt.com
dburns@pbwt.com
CONSUMER LEGAL: Senderovic Files FCRA Suit in D. Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consumer Legal Group
PC, et al. The case is styled as Fatima Senderovic, Jasmin
Ahmetovic, individually and For all others similarly situated v.
Consumer Legal Group PC, Aryeh Weber, Case No. 3:24-cv-01326-RNC
(D. Conn., Aug. 16, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Consumer Legal Group (CLG) -- https://www.consumerlegalgroup.com/
-- is a debt resolution law firm aiming to remove consumer debt and
help individuals achieve financial freedom.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Lindh Foster, Esq.
ERIC LINDH FOSTER LAW, LLC
48 Main Street
Old Saybrook, CT 06475
Phone: (203) 533-4321
Email: efoster@lindhfoster.com
CONSUMERINFO.COM INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Cox Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMERINFO.COM, INC., d/b/a Experian, et al. are taking an appeal
from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in
the lawsuit entitled Joe Cox, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ConsumerInfo.com, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00033, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia.
The case arises from the Defendants' bait and switch campaign
against consumers through the use of the term "free," which is used
to lure consumers into providing so-called "written permission" to
access their credit reports in violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
On Feb. 14, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied without prejudice through an
Order entered by Judge Robert C. Chambers on Aug. 1, 2024. Upon
examination, the Court was unable to find, as a matter of law, that
the Plaintiff assented to the expansive arbitration agreement
contained within the Terms of Use Agreement of the Defendants'
website www.FreeCreditReport.com. In light of the Court's
gatekeeping role, the Court ruled it must allow discovery on
contract formation and make further findings of fact on the
contract formation issue.
The appellate case is captioned Joe Cox v. ConsumerInfo.com, Inc.,
Case No. 24-1733, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, filed on August 7, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JOE COX, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jed Robert Nolan, Esq.
Benjamin Matthew Sheridan, Esq.
KLEIN & SHERIDAN
3566 Teays Valley Road
Hurricane, WV 25266
Telephone: (304) 562-7111
Defendants-Appellants CONSUMERINFO.COM, INC., d/b/a Experian, et
al. are represented by:
Michael C. Cardi, Esq.
BOWLES RICE, LLP
125 Granville Square
Morgantown, WV 26501
Telephone: (304) 285-2561
- and -
Ashley Clarke Odell, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
1000 Swiss Pine Way
P.O. Box 1616
Morgantown, WV 26507
Telephone: (304) 598-8150
- and -
John Alexander Vogt, Esq.
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 851-3939
CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Faces Harlan Suit Over CrowdStrike Outage
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER HARLAN and SARA HARLAN v. CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS, INC.,
and CROWDSTRIKE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00954 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 19,
2024) is a class action suing the Defendant for its negligent
design and implementation of the falcon update.
On July 29, 2024, CrowdStrike pushed out an ill-designed and poorly
tested update to its Falcon software, causing the largest computer
outage in history (the "CrowdStrike Outage"). As a result of the
Outage, thousands of Delta's computers crashed and had to be
manually rebooted. Delta could not even locate many of its flight
crews because that information was in the computers, the suit says.
As a direct result of CrowdStrike's knowing negligence, Delta had
to cancel thousands of flights, stranding, and confounding the
travel of, thousands of travelers that Delta had promised to
deliver on time to their destinations, destroying the value of many
events for which customers had paid, and collectively costing these
travelers millions of dollars, the suit claims.
The Plaintiffs, as a result of the CrowdStrike Outage and delayed
flights, incurred out-of-pocket expenses that would not otherwise
have been required. His additional expenses included food at the
airport on July 22 and 23, 2024, a night at the hotel, Uber rides
to and from the hotel, and additional parking and house-sitting,
the suit asserts.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action to redress the
CrowdStrike's knowing and careless disruption of Delta's systems
and its promises to its travelers.
The Plaintiffs purchased airline tickets for to return from their
vacation in the Dominican Republic to Atlanta, Georgia, and then to
fly on Delta from Atlanta home to the Des Moines, Iowa, airport on
July 22, 2024. As a result of the CrowdStrike Outage, Delta
canceled the Plaintiffs' flight from Atlanta to get home.
CrowdStrike is a cybersecurity enterprise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Kyle Oxford, Esq.
Korey A. Nelson
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
koxford@burnscharest.com
knelson@burnscharest.com
- and -
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Craig S. Davis, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
csdavis@locklaw.com
- and -
Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
Brendan Thompson, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
brendan@cuneolaw.com
- and -
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD &
WEESE, P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
CSA SERVICE: Fails to Pay Engineers' OT Wages, Heinz Says
---------------------------------------------------------
BEN HEINZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
CSA SERVICE SOLUTIONS LLC, and EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICE AND
REPAIR, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03855-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 19,
2024) challenges Defendants' policies and practices that violate
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The lawsuit contends that the Defendants willfully failed to pay
the Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime
premiums when they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The
Defendants misclassified and employed the Named Plaintiff and those
similarly situated as exempt salaried employees (with no overtime
eligibility), the lawsuit says.
The primary job duties of Named Plaintiff and those similarly
situated consisted of performing manual labor in the field. The
duties and lack of advanced knowledge the Field Service Engineer
position held by Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees requires does not meet the standard for the learned
professional exemption under Sections 13(a)(1) of the FLSA.
Additionally, the duties of Named Plaintiff and others similarly
situated did not meet the standard for any other exemptions of the
FLSA.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Colorado who has been jointly
employed by the Defendants as a Field Service Engineer from
December 2015 to the present.
CSA provides services and repairs of medical and laboratory devices
across a wide range of industries in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
CWPVA INC: Robertson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
ERIN ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CWPVA INC. d/b/a HOME GENIUS EXTERIORS,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01722 (C.D. Cal., August 7, 2024) is an
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for making telemarketing calls to numbers
on the National Do Not Call Registry, including the Plaintiff's.
Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to thousands
or even millions of potential customers en masse, Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other
persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf
of Defendant.
CWPVA Inc., d/b/a Home Genius Exteriors, is a home improvement
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
DAYTON CORRECTIONAL: Terry's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMILIA T. TERRY, v. M.
ALLEN, U.M.A. DAYTON CORRECTIONAL, et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-00176-MJN-SKB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Stephanie Bowman
entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion seeking appointed
counsel to represent her and/or the class that she is seeking to
have certified.
The Court makes every effort to appoint counsel when a case
proceeds to trial. The Court also attempts to appoint counsel at an
earlier stage if exceptional circumstances exist. Here, it does not
appear that exceptional circumstances exist at this time. If the
case proceeds past dispositive motions and is headed to trial, or
if the motion for class certification is granted, Plaintiff may
renew her motion.
The Undersigned will conduct the required screen as soon as
practicable. The Court will then enter an order and, if
appropriate, direct service of the Amended Complaint on the
defendant(s). The Clerk is directed to hold service until that
time.
The Undersigned will consider Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and any other pending motions after, or along with,
the initial screen. Plaintiff is advised that she must keep this
Court informed of her current address and promptly file a Notice of
New Address if she is released or transferred.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uwuC0A at no extra
charge.[CC]
DENTSPLY SIRONA: SAFPPF Suit Over Distributor Pricing Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 July 28, 2022, the company was
named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned "San
Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund v. Dentsply Sirona Inc. et
al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-06339.
The complaints in the Securities Litigation both allege that,
during the period from June 9, 2021 through May 9, 2022, the
Company, Mr. Donald M. Casey Jr., the company's former Chief
Executive Officer, and Mr. Jorge Gomez, the company's former Chief
Financial Officer, violated U.S. securities laws by, among other
things, making materially false and misleading statements or
omissions, including regarding the manner in which the company
recognizes revenue tied to distributor rebate and incentive
programs.
Multiple suits, including this, have now been consolidated into a
single case brought by one plaintiff class and an amended complaint
filed in August 2023.
On June 1, 2023, the court appointed the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System, the El Paso Firemen and Policemen's
Pension Fund, and the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System as
lead plaintiffs for the putative class, and consolidated the two
separate actions under case No. 1:22-cv-06339. The Plaintiffs filed
an amended class action complaint on July 28, 2023. The company
voluntarily contacted the SEC following the company's announcement
on May 10, 2022 of the Audit and Finance Committee's internal
investigation. On October 10, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint. Lead Plaintiffs’ opposition to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss was filed on December 8, 2023, and
Defendants’ reply was filed on January 8, 2024. The motion to
dismiss was granted as to Mr. Chadha and granted in part and denied
in part as to the Company, Mr. Casey, and Mr. Gomez in a ruling by
the Court on May 1, 2024. The Company’s answer to the Amended
Complaint was filed on May 21, 2024.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. is a manufacturer of dental products and
technologies, including dental consumable products, dental
equipment, dental technologies and certain healthcare consumable
products.
c
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Securities Suit Over Merger Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 a putative class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the company and certain individual defendants is still
ongoing.
Said action claimed that the company and certain individual
defendants, violated U.S. securities laws by making material
misrepresentations and omitting required information in the
December 4, 2015 registration statement filed with the SEC in
connection with the 2016 merger of Sirona Dental Systems Inc. with
DENTSPLY International Inc. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that
the defendants violated U.S. securities laws by making false and
misleading statements in quarterly and annual reports and other
public statements between February 20, 2014, and August 7, 2018.
The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a putative class
consisting of (a) all purchasers of the company's stock during the
period February 20, 2014 through August 7, 2018 and (b) former
shareholders of Sirona who exchanged their shares of Sirona stock
for shares of the company's stock in the Merger. The company moved
to dismiss the amended complaint on August 15, 2019. The plaintiff
filed its second amended complaint on January 22, 2021, and the
company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
March 8, 2021, with briefing on the motion fully submitted on May
21, 2021.
The company's motion to dismiss was denied in a ruling by the court
on March 29, 2023 and its answer to the second amended complaint
was filed on May 12, 2023. On September 29, 2023, the plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification. The company opposition to
the plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed on
February 8, 2024, and the plaintiff's reply was filed on May 10,
2024. On June 7, 2024, the company served a motion for judgment on
the pleadings seeking dismissal of the remainder of the amended
complaint. The plaintiff served its opposition on July 26, 2024,
and the motion was fully briefed and filed on August 16, 2024.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. is a manufacturer of dental products and
technologies, including dental consumable products, dental
equipment, dental technologies and certain healthcare consumable
products.
DESALES UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Filing in Keenhol Due April 11, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY LOGAN KEENHOL, v.
DESALES UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:24-cv-01083-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Jeffrey Schmehl entered a case management order as follows:
1. All fact discovery shall be completed by Mar. 12, 2025.
2. Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) shall be filed, and any class certification expert
shall be disclosed, by Apr. 11, 2025.
3. Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and class certification expert, if any, shall
be
disclosed by May 23, 2025.
4. Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class
certification
shall be filed by June 6, 2025.
5. Any dispositive motions must be filed by July 11, 2025.
6. A telephonic status conference shall be held on Monday, Dec.
9,
2024, at 11:00 a,m. Counsel shall use dial in number
888-204-
5984 access code 3221457.
DeSales University is a private Catholic university in Center
Valley, Pennsylvania. The university offers traditional, online,
and hybrid courses and programs at the undergraduate and graduate
levels.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qNQgbu at no extra
charge.[CC]
DREXEL BUILDING: Bid to Certify Classes in Kidd Due July 18, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER KIDD, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. DREXEL BUILDING
SUPPLY, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00356-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference
order as follows:
1. Amendments to the pleadings: Sept. 13, 2024
2. Motion for preliminary class Jan. 17, 2025
certification:
3. Motion & Brief to Certify Classes: July 18, 2025
4. Disclosure of all experts:
Plaintiffs: May 1, 2025
Defendants: June 16, 2025
5. Deadline for filing dispositive Jan. 16, 2026
motions:
6. Discovery Cutoff: July 10, 2026
7. Settlement Letters: July 10, 2026
Drexel Building Supply offers home design and cabinetry design
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TDp2VZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
ECOMMERCE WORLD: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Knowles Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. ECOMMERCE WORLD LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06262
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://usfireplacestore.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.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Aug. 12, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Sierra Flame By Amantii
Cast Iron Freestanding 23"/28" Electric Stove from Defendant and to
view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered
multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience
similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to
the goods and services offered to the public and made available to
the public. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory
conditions present on the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory
conditions continue to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of
isolation and segregation, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Knowles is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Defendant offers hearth products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
EMBANET-COMPASS: Must File Class Cert Response by Sept. 13
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marquez v. Embanet-Compass
Knowledge Group Inc. d/b/a Boundless Learning, Case No.
6:23-cv-02467 (M.D. Fla., Filed Dec. 22, 2023), the Hon. Judge
Wendy W. Berger entered an order endorsed order granting the
Defendant's motion for extension of time.
-- Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff's motion to certify class
on
or before September 13, 2024.
The nature of suit states labor litigation involving notice
required before plant closings and mass layoffs.[CC]
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Continues to Defend Late Fees Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Residential 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 late fees class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Company is named as a defendant in a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California filed
in 2016 which alleges that the amount of late fees charged by the
Company were improperly determined under California law.
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and other relief.
On April 8, 2024, the Court issued certain findings of facts and
conclusions of law that are adverse to the Company’s legal
position.
At this time, the Company is continuing to defend the action.
Equity Residential own and operate a residential rental property
located at 1281 9th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101.
ERIC MICHAEL: Jacobs Class Cert. Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D. Jacobs, v. Eric Michael
Garcetti et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-08010-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order referring class
certification to Magistrate Judge Scott for a Report and
Recommendation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qenI5B at no extra
charge.[CC]
EVERCOMMERCE INC: Continues to Defend Gusinsky Revocable Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EverCommerce Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Gusinsky Revocable Trust class suit in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On January 31, 2024, plaintiff Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware against the Company, members of its Board and
the other parties to its sponsor stockholders agreement, dated June
30, 2021, Providence Strategic Growth II L.P., Providence Strategic
Growth II-A L.P., SLA Eclipse Co-Invest, L.P., and SLA CM Eclipse
Holdings, L.P. (collectively, the "Sponsor Stockholders"),
captioned Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Eric Remer, Penny
Baldwin, et. al., Case No. 2024-0077 (Del Ch.).
The complaint generally alleges violations of Section 141(a) of the
Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL") by providing the Sponsor
Stockholders with a veto right over the Board's ability to hire or
fire the Company's Chief Executive Officer (the "CEO Approval
Right") on the basis that it unlawfully limits the Board's
authority to manage the business and affairs of the Company.
The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that the CEO Approval
Right is invalid and void, other declaratory and equitable relief
for the class and/or the Company, attorneys' and experts' witness
fees and other costs and expenses, and other equitable relief.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of
the plaintiff and members of the class and any liability for the
alleged claims is not currently probable and the potential loss or
range of loss is not reasonably estimable.
On June 14, 2024, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss, and on
July 15, 2024, Plaintiff opposed that motion.
The Company is party to additional legal proceedings incidental to
its business. While the outcome of these additional matters could
differ from management's expectations, the Company does not believe
that the resolution of such matters is reasonably likely to have a
material effect on its results of operations or financial
condition.
Headquartered in Denver, CO, EverCommerce is a publicly traded
corporation that provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions
for small- and medium-sized businesses. [BN]
EXTRACTION OIL: C & M Appeals Court Ruling to 10th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
C & M RESOURCES, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order in the lawsuit entitled C & M Resources, LLC, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Extraction Oil and Gas, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-CV-00037-NYW-MEH, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.
The suit, which was removed from the Denver County District Court
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, is brought
against the Defendant for allegedly deducting unused capacity
reservation charges or take-or-pay fees.
On Jan. 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case
to state court.
On Feb. 20, 2024, the Defendant filed its motion for judgment on
the pleadings. Therein, the Defendant argued that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction due to the Plaintiffs' failure to
exhaust their administrative remedies and that the Plaintiffs are
barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion from relitigating the
issue, which has been previously decided by two separate courts. It
argued that the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint should be
dismissed with prejudice.
On July 18, 2024, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand
the case and granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings through an Order entered by Judge Nina Y. Wang.
The Court agreed with the Defendant that collateral estoppel
applies in this case. The Plaintiffs are precluded from
relitigating the issue of administrative exhaustion, including
futility of exhaustion, for the third time here. And because the
Plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies before
the Commission, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
the case and dismissal is appropriate. The motion for judgment on
the pleadings was, therefore, granted.
The appellate case is captioned C & M Resources, LLC, et al. v.
Extraction Oil and Gas, Inc., Case No. 24-1311, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on August 8,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants C & M RESOURCES, LLC, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
George Barton, Esq.
Stacy Ann Burrows, Esq.
BARTON AND BURROWS
5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
Mission, KS 66205
Telephone: (913) 563-6250
(913) 563-6253
Defendant-Appellee EXTRACTION OIL AND GAS, INC. is represented by:
Matthew Charles Arentsen, Esq.
Justin L. Cohen, Esq.
Craig M. Finger, Esq.
Neil S. Sandhu, Esq.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK
675 15th Street, Suite 2900
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 223-1100
FAY SERVICING: Ellery Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal to 11th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE ELLERY is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her
lawsuit entitled Janice Ellery, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fay Servicing, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-60260-MD, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.
The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by denying the
Plaintiff's and each Class member's purchase offers related to
their attempted short sale transaction to mitigate their losses
after they fell delinquent on their mortgages.
On July 10, 2024, the Court granting in part the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss. The Court held that in the event Plaintiffs intend to
file a Fourth Amended Complaint, they must do so within 14 days.
On July 29, 2024, Judge Melissa Damian entered an Order dismissing
the case with prejudice, and closing the case.
The appellate case is captioned Janice Ellery, et al. v. Fay
Servicing, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-12564, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on August 7, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JANICE ELLERY, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Bruce Craig Botsford, Esq.
BRUCE BOTSFORD, PA
2524 Flamingo Ln.
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
Telephone: (954) 989-6333
- and –
Daniel Martin Solar, Esq.
THE DANN LAW FIRM CO., LPA
15000 Madison Ave.
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Defendant-Appellee FAY SERVICING, LLC is represented by:
Sara D. Dunn, Esq.
QUARLES & BRADY, LLP
101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 3400
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 387-0263
FRANKLIN & MARSHALL: Class Cert Filing in Doyle Due April 25, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM DOYLE, v. FRANKLIN
& MARSHALL COLLEGE, Case No. 5:24-cv-01024-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Jeffrey Schmehl entered a case management order that:
1. All fact discovery shall be completed by March 26, 2025.
2. Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) shall be filed, and any class certification expert
shall be disclosed, by Apr. 25, 2025.
3. Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and class certification expert, if any, shall
be
disclosed by June 6, 2025.
4. Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class
certification
shall be filed by June 20, 2025.
5. Any dispositive motions must be filed by July 25, 2025.
6. A telephonic status conference shall be held on Monday, Dec.
9,
2024, at 11:30 a,m. Counsel shall use dial in number
888-204-
5984 access code 3221457.
Franklin & Marshall College is a private liberal arts college in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5BUari at no extra
charge.[CC]
FREESE II INC: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Tucker Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
DYREAKA TUCKER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FREESE II, INC. d/b/a CLUB BLAZE ATLANTA, a Georgia
Domestic Profit Corporation, DAVID L. WHORTON, an individual, and
LAKISHA S. BROWN, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-03494-JPB (N.D. Ga., August 7, 2024) is an action for
damages and other relief brought by Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act as a result of Defendants' failure to pay
minimum wage and overtime wages as required by federal law.
The causes of action arise from Defendants' willful actions while
Plaintiff was employed as exotic dancers from 2017-present. During
her time being employed by Defendants, Plaintiff was denied minimum
wage payments and overtime wage payments as part of Defendants'
scheme to classify her and other dancers/entertainers as
independent contractors.
Freese II, Inc., d/b/a Club Blaze Atlanta, features adult
entertainers, including nude female dancers, who perform throughout
Club Blaze's facility.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
Jordan P. Rose, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com
jrose@theleachfirm.com
ppalmer@theleachfirm.com
FUNKO INC: Nov. 15 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SMITH v. MARIOTTI, et al.,
This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.
Case No. 2:22-cv-03155-WLH-MAA
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE
MATTERS
TO:
ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO HOLD OR BENEFICIALLY OWN, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, FUNKO, INC. ("FUNKO" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK OF
AS OF MARCH 4, 2024 ("CURRENT FUNKO STOCKHOLDERS")
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to the July 26, 2024 Preliminary
Approval Order entered in the above-captioned stockholder
derivative action, that a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
dated March 4, 2024 (the "Stipulation" or "Settlement") has been
entered to resolve all stockholder derivative claims pending on
behalf of nominal defendant Funko pending in several related
stockholder derivative actions in state and federal courts (the
"Litigation").
The Litigation alleges that the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to Funko by making or causing Funko to make
allegedly false and misleading statements to Funko stockholders and
the public regarding the Company's sales and growth and allegedly
failing to disclose important adverse facts about Funko's
operations and financial forecast regarding the Company's
lower-than-expected sales and the risk that Funko may need to
"write-down" slower moving inventory. The Litigation alleges that
the Individual Defendants failed to disclose material issues with
the Company's primary operations, including its inventory
management, and that the price of the Company's securities was
artificially inflated as a result.
In connection with, and conditioned upon, the Settlement, Funko has
agreed to implement and/or maintain corporate governance Measures,
as defined and set forth in the Stipulation. The outside
non-employee members of Funko's Board (including all independent,
non-defendant members) have determined, in an exercise of their
business judgment, that: (a) the litigation demands, the
Litigation, and the Plaintiffs' and Plaintiffs' Counsels' efforts
were a substantial and material factor in the Board's agreement to
adopt, implement, and maintain the Measures for the agreed term;
(b) the Measures provide a significant and material benefit to the
Company and its stockholders; and (c) the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and in the best interests of the Company and its
stockholders. The Defendants dispute the allegations in the
Litigation and enter into the Stipulation and Settlement without in
any way acknowledging any fault, liability, or wrongdoing of any
kind.
On November 15, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., First Street Courthouse,
Courtroom 9B, 9th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90012, the
Honorable Judge Wesley Hsu will hold a hearing (the "Settlement
Hearing") in the Action. The purpose of the Settlement Hearing is
to determine, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1: (i)
whether the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be approved; (ii) whether the notice of the
Settlement to Current Funko Stockholders fully satisfied the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 and the
requirements of due process; (iii) whether a final judgment should
be entered; (iv) whether the separately negotiated and agreed-to
Fee and Expense amount of $2,150,000 million to be paid to
Plaintiffs' Counsel by Funko's insurers should be approved; (v)
whether Service Awards for each of the Plaintiffs in the amount of
$2,500 each, to be paid out of the Fee and Expense Amount, should
be approved; and (vi) such other matters as may be necessary or
proper under the circumstances.
The Court may: (i) approve the Settlement, with such modifications
as may be agreed to by counsel for the Settling Parties consistent
with such Settlement, without further notice to Current Funko
Stockholders; (ii) continue or adjourn the Settlement Hearing from
time to time, by oral announcement at the hearing or at any
adjournment thereof, without further notice to Current Funko
Stockholders; and (iii) conduct the Settlement Hearing remotely
without further notice to Current Funko Stockholders. If you intend
to attend the Settlement Hearing, please consult the Court's
calendar and/or the website of Funko ( http://funko.com) for any
change in date, time or format of the Settlement Hearing.
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF
YOU ARE A CURRENT FUNKO STOCKHOLDER, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTION.
This is a summary notice only. For additional information about the
claims asserted in the Action and the terms of the proposed
Settlement, please refer to the documents filed with the Court in
the Action, the Stipulation and its exhibits (they are filed as an
exhibit to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and available at
www.sec.gov), and the full-length Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Derivative Matters (the "Notice"). The "Investor
Relations" section of Funko website (http://investor.funko.com)
provides hyperlinks to the Notice and to the Stipulation and its
exhibits.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS SUMMARY NOTICE.
If you have any questions about matters in this Summary Notice you
may contact Brett M. Middleton, Johnson Fistel, LLP, 501 West
Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101, Telephone: (619)
230-0063, E-mail: brettm@johnsonfistel.com; or Shane P. Sanders,
Robbins LLP, 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92122,
Telephone: (619) 525-3990, E-mail ssanders@robbinsllp.com .
If you are a Current Funko Stockholder, you will be bound by the
Final Order and Judgment of the Court granting final approval of
the Settlement and shall be deemed to have waived the right to
object (including the right to appeal) and forever shall be barred,
in this proceeding or in any other proceeding, from raising such
objection.
Any objections to the Settlement must be filed on or before October
17, 2024, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
Notice.
GUITARS ON MAIN: Walkup Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guitars On Main, LLC.
The case is styled as Rick Walkup, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Guitars On Main, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-06212 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Guitars on Main -- https://guitarsonmain.com/ -- is a premier
guitar store for lessons, repairs, and expert advice.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Randall Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN FULLER RANDALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHEQUITY, INC. Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00566-JCB (D. Utah, August 7, 2024) is a class action
lawsuit against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and
former clients of Defendant HealthEquity personally identifiable
information from cybercriminals.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members'
sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant
on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect against
disclosure -- was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed
due to the data breach. The harm resulting from a data and privacy
breach manifests in several ways, including identity theft and
financial and medical fraud, and the exposure of a person's private
information through a data breach ensures that such person will be
at a substantially increased and certainly impending risk of
identity theft crimes compared to the rest of the population,
potentially for the rest of their lives, says the suit.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, therefore brings claims for (i) negligence; (ii)
negligence per se; (iii) breach of an implied contract; (iv) breach
of fiduciary duty; (v) invasion of privacy; (vi) unjust enrichment
and (vii) declaratory judgment. The Plaintiff seeks damages and
injunctive relief, including the adoption of reasonably necessary
and appropriate data security practices to safeguard the private
information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the
Data Breach from occurring in the future.
HealthEquity, Inc. is a healthcare business services company
headquartered in Draper, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Hull, Esq.
Anikka T. Hoidal, Esq.
MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 456-7655
E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com
ahoidal@mohtrial.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
HERTZ CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 29, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sconce v. Hertz
Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01197 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Dale A. Drozd entered an order granting the parties joint
stipulation to modify the scheduling order:
-- Plaintiff's deadline to file Motion for July 29, 2025
Class Certification is:
-- All motions, except for motions for April 3, 2026
continuances, temporary restraining orders
or other emergency applications shall be
filed no later than:
-- the Final Pretrial Conference currently set June 9, 2026
for Sept. 23, 2025, is reset for:
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment.
HIGHLAND NOODLES: Faces Yu Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------
JIANMING YU and SHUJUN LI, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HIGHLAND NOODLES, INC. d/b/a
Highland Noodles, JUXIANG LI, and WENYUAN ZHANG a/k/a Chelsea
Zhang, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00706 (E.D. Tex., August 7,
2024) is an action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Internal Revenue Code, arising from
Defendants' various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment
policies, patterns, and/or practices.
The Plaintiffs allege that under the FLSA, that they are entitled
to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime wages, (2)
liquidated damages equal to unpaid overtime wages, or prejudgment
interest thereon, (3) post-judgment interest, and (4) reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Yu further alleges pursuant to IRC that he is entitled to
recover from the Defendants the greater of: (1) five thousand
dollars; or (2) the sum of actual damages sustained as a proximate
result of the filing of fraudulent information return(s), the costs
of this action, and at the court's discretion reasonable attorney
fees.
Plaintiff Yu was employed by Defendants to work as a chef at
Highland Noodles from on or about May 1, 2023 through on or about
July 23, 2024.
Plaintiff Li was employed by Defendants to work as a server at
Highland Noodles from January 10, 2021 through August 15, 2023, and
from October 16, 2023 through July 28, 2024.
Highland Noodles, Inc. is a business engaged in interstate or
foreign commerce, including in ingredients for various dishes.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
HILLMAN BEER: Venclauskas Hits Unpaid Wages, Tip Theft
------------------------------------------------------
LOGAN VENCLAUSKAS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. HILLMAN BEER, LLC, GREIG HILLMAN, BRADLEY
HILLMAN, and DAVID MAY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00204
(W.D.N.C., August 7, 2024) is an action seeking to recover unpaid
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina
Wage and Hour Act stemming from Defendants' tip theft and failure
to pay minimum wage.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a tipped employee during
the relevant time period and was paid approximately $2.15 per hour.
By withholding and/or diverting tips and failing to provide notice
of the tip credit under the FLSA and the NCWHA, the Defendant
forfeited the right to pay him a tipped minimum wage and now owes
him the difference between the tipped wage rate paid and full
minimum for every hour worked, asserts the Plaintiff.
Hillman Beer is a brewery and food establishment with three
locations in North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5003
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
Kevin M. Cox, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
kcox@thelyonfirm.com
HOPPIN LLC: Bustamente Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hoppin, LLC. The case
is styled as Valerie Bustamente, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Hoppin, LLC, Case No.
3:24-cv-00748-FDW-SCR (W.D.N.C., Aug. 15, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Hoppin' taproom -- https://hoppinclt.com/ -- offers 62 self-serve
beer, wine, cider and seltzers tap, a full cocktail bar and events
space for private and corporate events.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 7376
Asheville, NC 28802-7376
Phone: (828) 258-2991
Fax: (828) 257-2767
Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
HPC INDUSTRIAL: Longley Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Travis Longley, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. HPC
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1-100, Case No. BCV-24-102044
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on July 25, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-at-00575.
The Complaint brings putative class claims for the alleged: Failure
to Pay All Straight Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure
to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code, and
the Applicable Wage Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods
in Violation of Labor Code and the Applicable Wage Order; Failure
to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements in Violation of Labor Code;
Failure to Provide Wages When Due in Violation of Labor Code;
Failure to Reimburse/Illegal Deductions in Violation of Labor Code
and the Applicable California Regulations; Failure to Adopt a
Compliant Sick Pay/Paid Time Off Policy in Violation of Labor Code;
and Unfair Competition in Violation of Business & Professions
Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
Isabella B. Urrea, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com
isabella.urrea@ogletree.com
IDAHO: Rossow Seeks to Seal Class Certification Memo
----------------------------------------------------
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 sealing Plaintiff's
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification.
The Defendant has not stamped additional documents filed in support
of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification to be
confidential and subject to the Protective Order. Additionally,
Plaintiff Rossow is designating as confidential and subject to the
Protective Order Exhibits G, H and I to the transcript of the
deposition of Dave Jeppesen taken on March 7, 2024, in this
action.
Moreover, this redacted data, in connection with other facts and
argument provided in the Memorandum, illustrates a matter of public
interest regarding the disproportionate impact of the Child
Protection Central Registry system against pregnant women who use
Tetrahydrocannabinol (e.g., marijuana). Plaintiff Rossow thus
proposes that the Memorandum be filed on the public docket without
redactions, while deferring to the Court to balance the interests
of confidentiality that individuals on the Central Registry must
and should have against the interests of public access to judicial
records in Idaho.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H96Z2M 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
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Faces Shareholder Suit in WI Court
----------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International PLC 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 May 2024,
stockholders of Johnson Controls, Inc., filed a putative class
action complaint against Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI), certain
former officers and directors of Johnson Controls, Inc., and two
related entities (Jagara Merger Sub LLC and Johnson Controls
International plc) in Wisconsin state court relating to the 2016
merger of Johnson Controls and Tyco (Gumm et al. v. Molinaroli et
al., Case No. 30106, filed May 23, 2024 in the Circuit Court for
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin). The filing of the state court
complaint follows the dismissal of a related lawsuit filed in
federal court, which dismissal was affirmed on appeal in November
2023.
The 12-count state court Complaint asserts claims for (1) breach of
fiduciary duty; (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty;
(3); unjust enrichment; (4) violations of Wisconsin Business
Corporation Law §§ 180.1101-.1103; (5) breach of JCI's Articles
of Incorporation; (6) conversion; (7) violations of Wisconsin
Securities Act; (8) breach of covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (9) promissory estoppel; (10) tortious interference with
contract; (11) negligent or intentional misrepresentation/equitable
fraud; and (12) statutory fraud.
Defendants' response to the Complaint is due September 13, 2024. No
other case deadlines have been set at this time.
Johnson Controls International plc, headquartered in Cork, Ireland,
is into products, services, systems and solutions for safety,
comfort and intelligence of spaces of buildings.
KOOTENAI HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Licha Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACK LICHA and DAVID WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KOOTENAI HEALTH, INC., an Idaho Non-Profit
Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00378-DCN (D. Idaho, Aug. 19, 2024)
is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all
persons who entrusted Kootenai with sensitive personally
identifiable information and protected health information that was
impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on Aug.
12, 2024.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant failed to properly secure
and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its
accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information.
On March 2, 2024, Kootenai discovered that an unauthorized third
party gained access to its IT network.
On Aug. 1, 2024, Kootenai Health completed its investigation,
confirming that an unauthorized party gained access to the Private
Information of more than 464,000 patients', employees, and
employees' dependent Private Information. The investigation
revealed that an unknown actor may have gained unauthorized access
to certain data from the Kootenai network on Feb. 22, 2024.
The Implicated Private Information includes names; dates of birth;
Social Security numbers; driver's license numbers; government
issued identification numbers; medical record numbers; medical
treatment and condition information; medical diagnoses; medication
information; and health insurance information.
As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and
notice process, the Plaintiffs and Class Members' Private
Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiffs and the Class have
suffered, and will continue to suffer, injuries including financial
losses caused by misuse of Private Information; the loss or
diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the
Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing
identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information,
the suit asserts.
The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a
Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against
Defendant for: negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary
duty, and unjust enrichment.
Mr. Licha is a citizen and resident of Hayden, Idaho. He is a
patient of Kootenai.
Kootenai provides a comprehensive range of medical services to
patients in north Idaho, eastern Washington, Montana, and the
Inland Northwest at several facility locations.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Wyatt B. Johnson, Esq.
JOHNSON MAY LAW
199 N. Capitol, Suite 200
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: (208) 384-8588
Facsimile: (208) 629-2157
E-mail: wbj@johnsonmaylaw.com
- and -
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com
LDA PIZZA INC: Perez Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LDA Pizza Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Guillermo Aguirre Perez, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LDA Pizza Inc. dba
Gianni's Pizza, David Agudo, Carlos Agudo Aleman, Edgar Agudo
Aleman, as individuals, Case No. 1:24-cv-05738 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
LDA Pizza Inc. doing business as Gianni's Pizza --
https://www.giannispizzamonterey.com/ -- is a no-frills restaurant
featuring a variety of pies in addition to calzones, pasta &
gelato.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Patrick Peter O'Donnell, Esq.
Katelyn Marie Schillaci, Esq.
Roman M. Avshalumov, Esq.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: (718) 263-9591
Email: jamespodonnell86@gmail.com
katelyn@helendalton.com
avshalumovr@yahoo.com
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Angus Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National 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 Angus class suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Angus v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
No. 2:22-cv-01878, is a putative class action filed on May 13,
2022.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant LNL breached the terms of her life
insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance
charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance
policies issued or insured by LNL or its predecessors containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on their behalf.
Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted.
On August 26, 2022, LNL filed a motion to dismiss.
The Company is vigorously defending this matter.
Lincoln is a holding company which operates multiple insurance and
retirement businesses through subsidiary companies.[BN]
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Meade Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National 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 Meade class suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Donald C. Meade v. Lincoln National Corporation, Ellen Cooper,
Dennis Glass, and Randal Freitag ("Defendants"), No. 2:24-cv-01704,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, is a putative class action that was filed on April
23, 2024.
On June 24, 2024, Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust Fund
("Local 295") filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff.
Local 295 seeks to represent persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Lincoln National securities between November 4,
2020, and November 2, 2022, inclusive.
Plaintiff alleges claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and under SEC Rule 10b-5.
Plaintiff alleges that, throughout the putative class period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company’s business, operations and prospects.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors:
(i) that the Company was experiencing a decline in its VUL
business; (ii) that, as a result, the goodwill associated with the
life insurance business was overstated; (iii) that, as a result,
the Company's policy lapse assumptions were outdated; (iv) that, as
a result, the Company's reserves were overstated; (v) that, as a
result, the Company's reported financial results and financial
statements were misstated; and (vi) that, as a result, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages and attorney's
fees and costs.
The Company is vigorously defending this matter.
Lincoln is a holding company which operates multiple insurance and
retirement businesses through subsidiary companies.[BN]
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Morgan Class Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National 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 Morgan class suit in the District Court
of the 14th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas.
Henry Morgan et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln
Financial Group, et al, filed in the District Court of the 14th
Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, No. DC-23-02492, is a
putative class action that was filed on February 22, 2023.
Plaintiffs Henry Morgan, Susan Smith, Charles Smith, Laura Seale,
Terri Cogburn, Laura Baesel, Kathleen Walton, Terry Warner, and
Toni Hale ("Plaintiffs") allege on behalf of a putative class that
Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, LNL and
LLANY (together, "Lincoln"), FMR, LLC, and Fidelity Product
Services, LLC ("Fidelity") created and marketed misleading and
deceptive insurance products with attributes of investment
products.
The putative class comprises all individuals and entities who
purchased Lincoln OptiBlend products that allocated account monies
to the 1-Year Fidelity AIM Dividend Participation Account, between
January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022.
Plaintiffs assert the following claims individually and on behalf
of the class, (1) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act against Lincoln; (2) common-law fraud against Lincoln; (3)
negligent misrepresentation against Lincoln and Fidelity; and (4)
aiding and abetting fraud against Fidelity. Plaintiffs allege they
suffered damages from "a missed investment return of approximately
5-6%" and mitigation damages.
They seek actual, consequential and punitive damages, as well as
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and
litigation costs.
On March 31, 2023, the Lincoln defendants filed a notice of removal
removing the action from the 14th Judicial District of Dallas
County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division.
On May 8, 2023, the Lincoln defendants and the Fidelity defendants
filed motions to dismiss, which remain pending.
The Company is vigorously defending this matter.
Lincoln is a holding company which operates multiple insurance and
retirement businesses through subsidiary companies.[BN]
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Provisional Settlement in Glover for Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National 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 Glover class suit
provisional settlement is subject to the preliminary and final
approval of the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.
Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company ("LNL") on June 8, 2016.
Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.
On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.
In response, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint, which, on September 25, 2023, the court granted in part
and denied in part.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2023.
On March 7, 2024, the parties entered into a settlement agreement,
which is subject to court approval.
The provisional settlement encompasses policies that are at issue
in the Glover case, which also includes all policies in the
lawsuits captioned Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance
Company, TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated
Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance
Company and Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity
Company of New York, each of which are described below.
The Glover plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and a hearing on
the motion was held on July 30, 2024.
The provisional settlement, which is subject to both preliminary
and final approval of the court, consists of a $147.5 million
pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all
policyholders in Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida).
As of March 31, 2024, the Company had accrued the total provisional
settlement amount of $147.5 million, pre-tax.
Lincoln is a holding company which operates multiple insurance and
retirement businesses through subsidiary companies.[BN]
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Provisional Settlement in TVPX Suit for Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National 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 TVPX ARS Inc. class
suit provisional settlement is subject to the preliminary and final
approval of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.
Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of
insurance than permitted by the policy.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its
predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions
that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages
on behalf of all such policyholders.
On March 7, 2024, the parties in Glover v. Connecticut General Life
Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
(discussed above) entered into a settlement agreement, which is
subject to court approval.
The provisional settlement encompasses policies that are at issue
in this case, as the Glover case is inclusive of all policies in
this case, as well as in the lawsuits captioned Iwanski v. First
Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company (discussed above) and Vida
Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York
(discussed below).
The Glover plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and a hearing on
the motion was held on July 30, 2024.
The provisional settlement, which is subject to both preliminary
and final approval of the court, consists of a $147.5 million
pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all
policyholders in Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida).
A motion has been filed to stay the proceedings in this matter
pending the completion of the settlement approval process in
Glover.
Lincoln is a holding company which operates multiple insurance and
retirement businesses through subsidiary companies.[BN]
LIVE VENTURES: Continues to Defend Sieggreen Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Live Ventures 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 8, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Sieggreen class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada.
On August 13, 2021, Daniel E. Sieggreen, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated claimants (the "Plaintiff"), filed
a class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada,
naming the Company, Jon Isaac, the Company's current President and
Chief Executive Officer, and Virland Johnson, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, as defendants (collectively, the "Company
Defendants").
The allegations asserted are similar to those in the SEC Complaint.
Among other sought relief, the complaint seeks damages in
connection with the purchases and sales of the Company's securities
between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021.
As of December 17, 2021, the judge granted a stipulation to stay
proceedings pending the resolutions of the motions to dismiss in
the SEC Complaint.
On February 1, 2023, the final motion to dismiss relating to the
SEC Complaint was denied, which was subsequently noticed in the
Sieggreen action on February 2, 2023.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 6, 2023.
On May 5, 2023, the Company Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Complaint, and the briefing on that motion is now
complete.
Discovery is automatically stayed in this case until after the
disposition of the Motion to Dismiss.
The Motion to Dismiss is set for hearing on August 28, 2024.
If the Motion to Dismiss is not successful, the case will proceed
to discovery.
The Company Defendants strongly dispute and deny the allegations at
issue in this case and intend to continue to defend themselves
vigorously against these claims.
Live Ventures Incorporated is a holding company with focus on
value-oriented acquisitions of domestic middle-market companies
based in Nevada.
LIVE VENTURES: Mediation in Sanchez Suit Set for Oct. 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Live Ventures 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 8, 2024, that the Sanchez Labor class
suit parties agreed to take part in the October 30, 2024
mediation.
On July 27, 2022, Irma Sanchez, a former employee of Elite Builder
Services, Inc. ("Elite Builders"), filed a class action complaint
against Elite Builders in the Superior Court of California, County
of Alameda, which was transferred to Stanislaus County.
The complaint alleges that Elite Builders failed to pay all minimum
and overtime wages, failed to provide lawful meal periods and rest
breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
failed to pay all wages due upon separation as required by
California law.
The complaint was later amended as a matter of right on October 4,
2022.
Further, Ms. Sanchez put the Labor & Workforce Development Agency
on notice to exhaust administrative remedies and enable her to
bring an additional claim under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act, which permits an employee to assert a claim
for violations of certain California Labor Code provisions on
behalf of all aggrieved employees to recover statutory penalties.
The parties have agreed to participate in mediation on October 30,
2024, in an effort to minimize litigation costs and seek
resolution.
Live Ventures Incorporated is a holding company with focus on
value-oriented acquisitions of domestic middle-market companies
based in Nevada.
MATCH GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Oksayan Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Match 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 Oksayan class suit in the Northern
District of California.
On February 14, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Match Group, Inc. in the Northern District of California by
six plaintiffs from California, New York, Georgia, and Florida.
Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that the Tinder, Hinge, and
The League apps are designed to be "addictive" in violation of
various consumer protection, product liability, negligence, and
other laws.
Plaintiffs claim that these services' business models and features
addict unsuspecting users, leading to increased depression,
loneliness, among other things.
Plaintiffs further allege that Tinder, Hinge, and The League failed
to warn them of the risks of addiction and that the apps are
engaging in fraudulent business practices by marketing their apps
in a misleading way.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, as well as injunctive relief
(implementing warnings, discontinuing certain marketing campaigns,
providing resources).
On June 10, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on
July 22, 2024, the Company filed a motion to compel plaintiffs'
claims to arbitration.
The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the allegations
in this lawsuit and defends vigorously against them.
Match Group, LLC is an American internet and technology company
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
MAXIMUS INC: Continues to Defend Garcia Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Maximus 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 8, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Garcia class suit in the state court in Marion
Superior Court of Marion County, Indiana.
On October 27, 2023, a purported class action was filed in state
court in Marion Superior Court in Marion County, Indiana, against
Maximus Health Services, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of
Maximus, Inc.): Solis Garcia v. Maximus Health Services, Inc., Case
No. 49D12-2310-CT-042115 (Ind. Super. Ct., Marion Cnty.), again
arising out of the MOVEit cybersecurity incident.
The plaintiff, who purports to represent a class comprised of
Indiana residents, alleges, among other things, that the Company's
negligence resulted in the compromise of the plaintiff's personally
identifiable information and protected health information.
The plaintiff seeks damages to be proved at trial.
The Company has removed this case to federal court in the Southern
District of Indiana and it has been transferred to the MDL.
The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate
outcome of any of these proceedings or reasonably provide an
estimate or range of the possible outcome or loss, if any.
Maximus covers a broad array of services, including the operation
of large health insurance eligibility and enrollment programs,
clinical services, including assessments, appeals, and independent
medical reviews and technology services.
MCCALLA RAYMER LEIBERT: Marques Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andreia Cabral Marques, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. MCCALLA RAYMER LEIBERT PIERCE,
LLC, Case No. UNN-L-002543-24 was removed from the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on Aug. 16, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08507.
The Complaint asserts that MRLP sent Plaintiff a written notice of
foreclosure that allegedly failed to comply with the requirements
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Suna Lee, Esq.
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN, & DICKER, LLP
7 Giralda Farms
Madison, NJ 07940
Phone: (973) 624-0800
Fax: (973) 624-0808
Email: Suna.Lee@WilsonElser.com
MCLAREN CENTRAL: Reeves Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER REEVES, individually and for others similarly situated v.
MCLAREN CENTRAL MICHIGAN and MCLAREN HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Case
No. 2:24-cv-12059-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., August 7, 2024) arises from
the Defendants' implementation of an automatic meal break deduction
policy by depriving Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members of
overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Reeves worked for the Defendants from approximately
November 2022 until June 2023 as a registered nurse at McLaren's
Central Michigan facility. Throughout her employment, the
Defendants violated, and are violating, the FLSA by failing to pay
the Plaintiff overtime wages, including hours worked "off the
clock" during these employees' unpaid meal periods, says the
Plaintiff.
McLaren Central Michigan is a 118-bed acute care hospital located
in Mount Pleasant, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910
Telephone: (248) 542-6300
E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Olivia R. Beale, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
obeale@mybackwages.com
MENOS US: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Knowles Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. MENOS US INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06263
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://ippodotea.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Aug. 12, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Premium Gyokuro Tea from
the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the
Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person
and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public, the suit says.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and
segregation, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Knowles is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Menos operates the Ippodo Tea online interactive Website and retail
store across the United States. The Defendant's interactive Website
provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services
including information about Defendant's: tea collections &
teaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
NATIONAL INSPECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Thurlow Says
------------------------------------------------------------
BRYE THURLOW, individually and for others similarly situated v.
NATIONAL INSPECTION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01135 (W.D.
Pa., August 7, 2024) is a class and collective action seeking to
recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
Plaintiff Thurlow and the other shift rate workers regularly work
more than 40 hours a week but National Inspection does not pay him
and the other shift rate workers for all their hours worked.
Instead, National Inspection pays him and the other workers for 8
hours, 10 hours, or 12 hours of work, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an assistant
radiographer in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio from
approximately September 2023 until June 2024.
National Inspection Services, LLC is a full-service non-destructive
testing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
William F. Goodrich, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST, PC
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (412) 766-1455
Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
bill@goodrichandgeist.com
NEW YORK: General Pre-Trial Management Order Entered in O.M. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as O.M. et al., v. NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-04446-AT-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=s41Eo1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
NOVA HOME: Savinova Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
YELENA SAVINOVA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motions for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled
Yelena Savinova, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nova Home Care, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01612-SVN, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful practices
that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA).
On Mar. 29, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification through an Order entered by Judge
Sarala V. Nagala.
The Court ruled that there are genuine disputes of fact pertinent
to the Plaintiffs' joint employer theory of liability that preclude
summary judgment on the overtime claims of the Plaintiffs who
worked for both Nova and Southern. As for deficiencies with
individual Plaintiffs' sleep time claims, there is no genuine
dispute that Nova did not have actual or constructive knowledge of
potential sleep time disruptions experienced by Plaintiffs Doumbia,
Fedotova, Ilina, McLaughlin, Rutkowska, and Spencer. The Court
further found that there are genuine disputes of fact on whether
Nova violated the FLSA "willfully," such that a three-year statute
of limitations period may be appropriate. Because the Court
declined to equitably toll the statute of limitations period
further, however, the sleep time claims of Plaintiffs Fuseini,
Harrison, Jaksina, Kalata, and Vlasova are fully time-barred.
Plaintiffs Doumbia, Fedotova, Ilina, McLaughlin, Rutkowska, and
Spencer may proceed on their sleep time claims on the theory that
there was not a valid agreement to exclude sleep from their pay.
On April 12, 2024, both Defendants and Plaintiffs filed motions for
reconsideration of the March 29 Order. On same day, the Plaintiffs
also filed a second motion to certify class.
On July 26, 2024, Judge Nagala entered an Order denying all motions
for reconsideration. The Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification was also denied.
The appellate case is captioned Savinova v. Nova Home Care, LLC,
Case No. 24-2113, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on August 9, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners YELENA SAVINOVA, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Mariusz Kurzyna, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Defendants-Respondents NOVA HOME CARE, LLC, et al. are represented
by:
Glenn Alan Duhl, Esq.
ZANGARI COHN CUTHBERTSON DUHL & GRELLO P.C.
59 Elm Street, Suite 400
New Haven, CT 06510
SCHMIDT BAKING: Silva Appeals Court Order Compelling Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL SILVA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in the
lawsuit entitled Nathaniel Silva, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Schmidt
Baking Distribution, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-1695, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this putative class action against the Defendants for
alleged misclassification as independent contractors, unlawful
deductions from their wages, and failure to pay them for overtime
work in violation of Connecticut wage laws.
On Jan. 5, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Michael P. Shea on May 2, 2024.
In sum, Judge Shea held that the Plaintiffs are not exempt under
Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"); the arbitration
agreements are binding on them as owners and officers of their
respective businesses; and the arbitration agreements validly
delegate their unconscionability challenges to the arbitrator.
Thus, all of the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments are to be decided
by an arbitrator.
For all the reasons explained in its Ruling, the Court granted the
Motion to Compel Arbitration, and the action was stayed. The Clerk
was instructed to administratively close the case. Either party may
move to reopen the case following the decision by the arbitration
panel. Any such motion must be filed within 30 days of the
rendering of the decision and a copy of the decision must be filed
with the Court.
The appellate case is captioned Silva v. Schmidt Baking
Distribution, LLC, Case No. 24-2103, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on August 9, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants NATHANIEL SILVA, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
SEPPINNI LAW
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Defendants-Appellees SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY, INC., et al. are
represented by:
William J. Anthony, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
900 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 471-4404
SSR MINING: Faces Akhras Securities Suit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------
SSR Mining 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 March 18, 2024, a putative
securities class action, "Karam Akhras v. SSR Mining Inc., et.
al.," Case No. 24-cv-00739 was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado.
The US Securities Actions assert claims for alleged violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the company, as well as certain of its current
and former members of management and for alleged violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants. The complaints allege that certain public statements
made by the defendants were rendered materially false and
misleading with respect to, among other things, the adequacy of the
company's internal controls relating to its safety practices and
operational integrity at its Çöpler mining facility in Türkiye.
SSR Mining Inc. and its subsidiaries is a precious metals mining
company with four producing assets located in the United States,
Türkiye, Canada and Argentina.
SSR MINING: Faces Jones Shareholder Suit in Canadian Court
----------------------------------------------------------
SSR Mining 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 two additional putative
securities class action, "Michael Jones v. SSR Mining., et. al.,"
was on May 1, 2024 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
This action asserts claims for alleged misrepresentations by the
defendants at common law and in contravention of applicable
Provincial securities law disclosure obligations. It seeks
unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the putative class
members.
SSR Mining Inc. and its subsidiaries is a precious metals mining
company with four producing assets located in the United States,
Türkiye, Canada and Argentina.
SSR MINING: Faces Mutat Shareholder Suit in Canadian Court
----------------------------------------------------------
SSR Mining 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 a putative securities class
action, "Abdurrazag Mutat v. SSR Mining Inc., et al.," was filed on
April 23, 2024, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
SSR Mining Inc. and its subsidiaries is a precious metals mining
company with four producing assets located in the United States,
Türkiye, Canada and Argentina.
SSR MINING: Faces Padley Shareholder Suit in Canadian Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
SSR Mining 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 a putative securities class
action, "Glenna Padley v. SSR Mining Inc., et. al." was filed on
March 27, 2024 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
SSR Mining Inc. and its subsidiaries is a precious metals mining
company with four producing assets located in the United States,
Türkiye, Canada and Argentina.
SSR MINING: Liang Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Ontario Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
SSR Mining 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 another putative securities class
action, "Chao Liang v. SSR Mining Inc., et. al." was filed on April
5, 2024, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
This action asserts claims for alleged misrepresentations by the
defendants at common law and in contravention of applicable
Provincial securities law disclosure obligations. It seeks
unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the putative class
members.
SSR Mining Inc. and its subsidiaries is a precious metals mining
company with four producing assets located in the United States,
Türkiye, Canada and Argentina.
STURM RUGER & CO: Faces Jones Class Suit in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that in August 3, 2022, that the company was
named in a purported class action lawsuit arising out of a data
breach at Freestyle Solutions, Inc., the vendor who hosted the
company's ShopRuger.com website at the time of the breach.
The case is captioned "Jones v. Sturm, Ruger & Co." was filed in
the U.S. District Court for Connecticut on October 4, 2022. On
March 27, 2024, the court dismissed plaintiffs' negligence and
unjust enrichment claims against the company and the court denied
the motion with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim,
concluding that development of additional information is required
to assess the applicability of the limitation of liability clause
contained in the company's terms and conditions of use.
On January 20, 2023, five plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
naming the company and Freestyle Software, Inc. as defendants. The
complaint alleges causes of action for negligence, breach of
implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. The company filed a
Motion to Dismiss on a variety of grounds. And the matter has been
fully briefed.
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is principally engaged in the design,
manufacture, and sale of firearms to domestic customers and
manufactures investment castings made from steel alloys and metal
injection molding parts for internal use in its firearms and for
sale to unaffiliated, third-party customers.
SUMMIT HEALTH: Stewart Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESHANEE STEWART and
SEVARIA WILLS, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, v. SUMMIT HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a CITYMD, and
CITY PRACTICE GROUP OF NEW YORK LLC, d/b/a CITYMD, Case No.
1:23-cv-04073-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting motion for conditional collective certification
and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b).
Summit Health is a healthcare company offering physician management
and operations management services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wkygoc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are 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
TGINESIS LLC: Adewol Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
OLUWAKEMI ADEWOL is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
the lawsuit entitled Oluwakemi Adewol, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tginesis LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00509-GLR, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought against the Defendant for its deceptive and misleading
practices with respect to its marketing and sale of its vitamin
products.
On Aug. 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
On Oct. 2, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim, which the Court
granted through an Order entered by Judge George Levi Russell, III
on July 10, 2024.
The Court found that because the Plaintiff has identified only a
hypothetical loss, she has not pled a cognizable injury under
Maryland's Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). Accordingly, her MCPA
claim must be dismissed.
The appellate case is captioned Oluwakemi Adewol v. Tginesis LLC,
Case No. 24-1753, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, filed on August 13, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant OLUWAKEMI ADEWOL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Steffan Keeton, Esq.
KEETON FIRM LLC
100 South Commons
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
Defendant-Appellee TGINESIS LLC is represented by:
Meegan B. Brooks, Esq.
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARNOFF
100 Pine Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (628) 600-2266
- and –
Sheila Maureen Prendergast, Esq.
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARNOFF, LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 212-4949
- and –
Heather Ann Rice, Esq.
FRANKLIN & PROKOPIK
2 North Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 230-3617
UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay Specialists' OT Wages, McVey Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD McVEY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Case No. 2:24-cv-04297 (E.D. Pa., Aug.
19, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff
one and a half times their regular rate when they worked more than
40 hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
From 2021 through October 2023, the Plaintiff held the job title of
Specialist at United Parcel Service at the West Chester,
Pennsylvania Hub. Starting from at least Aug. 17, 2021 and
throughout the rest of the Plaintiff's tenure as Specialist, he had
been required to work off the clock. Had he been paid all of the
hours worked, he would have earned approximately 467 hours of
overtime wages. The Plaintiff voluntarily took a demotion from
Specialist to Part-Time Supervisor in October 2023. He took this
demotion because of the stress and difficulty of working so many
unpaid hours, the suit says.
In June 2018, Mr. McVey was hired by UPS. In February 2019, he was
promoted to Part-Time Supervisor. In November 2020, the Plaintiff
began performing the duties of Specialist. However, he was not
officially promoted to Specialist until May 2021. During this time,
the Plaintiff was supervised by Jesse Quave.
United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and
supply chain management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy P. Creech, Esq.
CREECH & CREECH LLC
1835 Market St., Suite 2710
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 575-7618
Facsimile: (215) 575-7688
E-mail: timothy@creechandcreech.com
UNITED STATES GYPSUM: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES GYPSUM
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06921 (N.D. Ill., August 7,
2024) arises from the Defendant's willful failure to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages as
well as failure to comply with all other requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and for unjust
enrichment.
Mr. Rodriguez says that he regularly worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek. The Defendant was aware that he, the FLSA Collective, and
OPPA Subclass (who worked overtime hours, as applicable) worked
overtime hours, but Defendant did not fully and properly pay them
in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA and state
law for all of their compensable hours worked due to its
companywide policies/practices, says the Plaintiff.
Mr. Rodriguez worked as a loader and an operator at Defendant's
manufacturing/production facility located in Gypsum, Ohio from
November 2020 until approximately February 2024.
United States Gypsum Company serves construction markets around the
world with manufactured wall, ceiling, flooring, sheathing, and
roofing products, and other related building material products, for
its customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
4400 N. High St., Suite 310
Columbus, OH 43214
Telephone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Esther E. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
Toledo, OH 43606
Telephone: (419) 824-4439
Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
E-mail: Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
50 Public Square, Suite 1900
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Kevin M. McDermott, II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
Strongsville, Ohio 44136
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
UNITED WATER: Court Allows Expert to Testify via Zoom in Knott Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KNOTT, ET AL., V.
UNITED WATER SYSTEM, INC., ET AL., Case No. 6:23-cv-00401-DCJ-DJA
(W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge David Joseph entered an order granting
the refiled unopposed/ex parte motion for leave to allow expert
John Kind to testify via Zoom at the Class Certification Hearing
filed by United Water System, Inc.
United Water systems provide Central water heating &cooling
systems, water filtration, air condition and water pumps.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qSeyxM at no extra
charge.[CC]
*********
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 ***