/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240904.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 4, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 178 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Walters Alleges ADVANCE STORES: Richardson Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info AMERITAS MUTUAL: Class Settlement in Weisenberger Gets Final Nod ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Overby Suit API FINANCIAL: Class Settlement in Schleicher Gets Initial Nod ARBORWORKS LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 21, 2025 ARKANSAS: Plaintiffs' Bid for Summary Judgment OK'd in Farella ATA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Fraud Suit in New Jersey BELLA ELEVATOR: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Graves Suit BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Berl Files Suit in W.D. Virginia BRIDGETON WEST: Swartz Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers BRONSON NUTRITIONALS: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BROOKLINEN INC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BUKHARI GROUP: Initial OK Settlement Tossed w/o Prejudice CAKE 5332: Alvarez Wins Conditional Collective Certification CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Musquiz Suit Removed to C.D. California CAPITAL ONE: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Shah Alleges CAREFIRST INC: Attias Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Tossed CARMICHAEL INTERNATIONAL: Yates Suit Removed to C.D. California CEDAR FAIR: Walker Seeks Leave to File Todd Declaration CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Seeks Sept. 5 Evidentiary Hearing CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Mudahy Must Show Cause Why Suit Should Continue CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Oct. 4 Hearing on Enforcement of Settlement CHAS. C. PARKS: Pearson Balks at Mass Layoff Without Notice CLEAN HARBORS: Parties in Fogg Must Continue Merits Discovery CLEARVIEW AI: Deadline for Settlement Exclusion Set September 20 CLOVER HEALTH: Continues to Defend Bond Class Suit COLE GROUP: Von Taplett Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Texas COMPASS INC: Antitrust Suits Stayed Pending Final OK of Settlement CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend Casey Class Suit CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit COTERRA ENERGY: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for Oct. 24 CRONOS GROUP: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of Suit Pending CS DISCO: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending CSM-KEY BISCAYNE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property CVS PHARMACY: Parties Seek to Modify Briefing Sched in Class Suit DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Dismissal of Rosencrants Suit Under Appeal DAVID RAMSEY: Lampo Defendants' Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed DAVIDS NATURAL: Schoeps Must File Class Cert Bid by May 2, 2025 DAWN TO DUSK: Cifuentes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages DEXCOM INC: Alonzo Sues Over False and Misleading Statements DMCG INC: Abeyta Must File Reply Brief by Sept. 13 DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Faces McClain Class Action Suit in S.D. Ohio DRAFTKINGS INC: Court Dismisses Turley Class Suit DRAFTKINGS INC: Loses Motion to Dismiss Consumer Class Action DRIVEN BRANDS: Continues to Defend GCERS Class Suit EARNIN: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hidden Interest Payments EIDP INC: Must Oppose Banks Class Cert Bid by Nov. 25 ENDAVA PLC: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Mueller Suit Says ENOVIX CORP: Faces Walker Labor Suit in California Court EPIC LANDSCAPE: Gomez Seeks to Certify Class Action EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sullivan "FCRA" Suit Seeks Class Certification EQUITY NATIONAL: Court Narrows Claims in Jaraczewski Suit EVENING POST: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Sosebee Says EVOLVE BANK: Faces Nieves Class Action Suit in S.D. Va. FAMILY DOLLAR: Sendejo Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida FIFTH THIRD BANK: Vogelsang Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. FIRST COMMUNITY: Settlement in Securities Class Suit for Court OK FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Junks Stay of All Discovery FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court OKs Stay of Expert Deadlines in Brighthouse FIT FOODS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mencia-Montes Due July 18, 2025 FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Villanueva Suit Removed to C.D. California FLIGHTAWARE LLC: Chen Sues Over Failure to Implement Data Security FLORIDA COMMUNITY HEALTH: Capellan Suit Removed to S.D. Florida FLORIDA COMMUNITY: Orr Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. FLORIDA COMMUNITY: Simmons Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. FLORIDA COMMUNITY: Sparnicht Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. FULL STEAM STAFFING: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Studen Class Suit in Washington GANNETT CO: Court Dismisses Bradley Suit w/o Prejudice GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Howard Due Sept. 6 GIFTROCKET INC: Seeks to Withdraw Bid to Deny Class Certification GKN DRIVELINE: Ayers FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Certification GKN DRIVELINE: Ferges FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Certification GNRG LLC: Fact Discovery in Sharp Suit Due Oct. 22 GOLDCO DIRECT: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Reversal Ruling on Dismissed Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Junks Securities Class Suit GOOD TREE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Sumlin Says GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO: Dumire Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages HADLEY TOWING: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Rivera Alleges HAH GROUP: Delia Sues Over Failure to Protect Highly Sensitive Data HAWX LLC: Hall Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Kent Suit Removed to W.D. Washington HESS CORP: Court Grants Motion to Strike a Subclass of Plaintiffs HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES: Murras Labor Suit Removed to D. Mass. INTELEMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS: Tirado Balks at Unsolicited Calls JERICO PICTURES: Wyche Alleges Inadequate Data Security Measures KK NUTRITION: Zimmerman Probes Claims Over Gummies' False Ads MASSAGE ENVY: Ahdoot Wolfson Investigates Auto-Renewal Practices MERIDIAN SERVICES: Bishop Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MERRICK GARLAND: Plaintiffs Directed Not to File Additional Bids METHODE ELECTRONICS: Faces Salem Suit Over 80% Drop of Stock Price MFP AGENCY: Parties in Suess Suit Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines MODERNA INC: Wentz Sues Over Drop in Share Price MONTE NIDO: Choi Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information MORGANE LE FAY: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MPW INDUSTRIAL: Warren Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois MULTIPLAN INC: AOC Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois MULTIPLAN INC: Tarzana Recovery Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois MULTIPLAN INC: Vanity Wellness Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NANO NUCLEAR: Yang Sues Over Drop in Share Price NASSAU, NJ: Faces Disability Class Action Suit Over Mask Ban NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Monroe Class EFTA Suit in S.D. Virginia NEPENTHES AMERICA: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NOBLE CREDIT: Immigrants Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod NOBLR RECIPROCAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Data Breach Suit OKLAHOMA PETROLEUM: Settlement Class Gets Certification in Dinsmore OLD SOUTHWEST HEALTH: Johnson Files Suit in W.D. Virginia OTS SOLUTIONS: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. OUTDOOR DREAM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Consumer Fraud PET MARKET: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PROCTER & GAMBLE: Tampons Contains Toxic Lead, Suit Alleges PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Appeals Remand Order in Turner Suit RAFAEL MOVING: Faces Tejada-Pena Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. RINGSIDE COLLECTIBLES: Karim Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ROMAN HEALTH: Faces Torres TCPA Class Suit in S.D. Fla. SAMUEL SON: Faces Hargis Class Action Lawsuit in S.D. Ohio SCOTTSDALE UNIFIED: Parsons Alleges Retaliation, Discrimination SFTD LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cantwell Says SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: NFT Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward SPRINKLR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 8 SSR MINING: Court Rules on Carriage of Securities Class Action STATE FARM: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Underpaid Claims Suit STMM INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Says STOP & SHOP: Faces Williams Suit Over Misleading Pricing Scheme SUMIDA AMERICA: Underpays Mold Operators, Gilbert-Thompson Claims TELEFLORA LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Picon Says TROOMI WIRELESS: Young Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website UNITED NATURAL: Wallace Sues Over Misleading Mixed Fruit Label WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 23 WHITE FOX: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Claims WISCONSIN: Robillard Sues Over Flawed Extended Supervision Policy [*] Czech Law Caters Claims Related to Class Actions ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Walters Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LUCAS WALTERS; and QUEEN BLANTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07037 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 9, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Walters was employed by the Defendant as a packaging operator. Abbott Laboratories discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells a broad and diversified line of health care products and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Tel: (614) 949-1181 Fax: (614) 386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com ADVANCE STORES: Richardson Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAVEN RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INCORPORATED, ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., and SNOWFLAKE INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00488-BO (E.D.N.C., August 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, bailment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within the Defendants' computer systems following a data breach from April 14, 2024, to May 24, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Advance Stores Company, Incorporated is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Advance Auto Parts, Inc., headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. is an automotive aftermarket parts provider, headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina. Snowflake Inc. is a cloud-based data hosting company, headquartered in Bozeman, Montana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 N. Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com AMERITAS MUTUAL: Class Settlement in Weisenberger Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA WEISENBERGER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AMERITAS MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY, Case No. 4:21-cv-03156-JMG-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge John Gerrard entered an order that: 1. The plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement is granted. 2. The plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service award is granted. 3. The settlement agreement is approved in all respects, and the parties are directed to perform and satisfy the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement. 4. Pursuant to Rule 23, for settlement purposes only, this action is certified as a class action, and the settlement class is certified, defined as: "All individuals residing in the United States to whom Ameritas sent an August 2019 notice regarding a May or June 2019 data breach." Excluded from the class are: a. Ameritas and any related entities, and their officers and directors; b. All settlement class members who timely and validly requested exclusion, whose names are listed in Attachment 1 (see filing 70 at 4); c. Any members of the judiciary who are presiding or have presided over the instant action, and their families and staffs; and d. Any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding, or abetting the criminal data breach giving rise to the class action, or any person who pleads nolo contendre to any such charge. 5. Cynthia Weisenberger is designated as the settlement class representative. 6. Nicholas A. Migliaccio and Jason S. Rathod of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP are appointed as settlement class counsel. 7. Class counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $245,163.98, and costs and expenses in the amount of $9,836.02. Such amounts shall be paid by the settlement administrator pursuant to and consistent with the terms of the settlement. 8. The class representative is awarded a service award in the amount of $2,500, such amount to be paid by the settlement administrator pursuant to and consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement. The plaintiff's submissions and other materials in the case file establish that class certification is appropriate under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2), and the requested attorneys' fees and costs, and the class representative service award, are reasonable under Rule 23(h). This case involves a data security breach from 2019. The class members are the defendant's customers who received notice that their personally identifiable information, including names, addresses, email addresses, and Social Security numbers, were potentially accessed by cybercriminals. The complaint alleged that the personal information from thousands of the defendant's customers was likely available for purchase on the dark web. Ameritas provides insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3FBxmm at no extra charge.[CC] ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Overby Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS E. OVERBY, JR., and ABBY GEARHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00141-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Arenda Wright Allen entered an order granting joint motion to modify Rule 16(b) scheduling order with extension of dispositive motion deadlines and stay of pre-trial and trial deadlines 1. The deadline for dispositive motions will be extended to 45 days after the close of expert discovery, which is scheduled to conclude 90 days after the Rule 23 class certification motion is finally resolved (including the resolution of any appeals arising from the Court's decision. 2. The deadline for any response brief to a dispositive motion will be 21 days after the deadline for dispositive motions. 3. The deadline for any reply brief to a dispositive motion will be 14 days after the deadline for response briefs. 4. All other unexpired pre-trial and trial deadlines currently in effect are stayed. 5. The parties are directed to file a notice with the Court no later than five (5) business days after final resolution of Plaintiffs' Rule 23 class certification motion to propose a modified schedule for pre-trial and trial deadlines. Anheuser-Busch is an American brewing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yaRuDW at no extra charge.[CC] API FINANCIAL: Class Settlement in Schleicher Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORIS SCHLEICHER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. API FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-01431-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Clark entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class settlement. -- Class certification for settlement purposes only For settlement purposes only, the Court certifies the following class: "All individuals in the United States who were sent a notice of the Data Incident, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement." Excluded from the Settlement Class are API, the Judge assigned to this case, and that Judge's immediate family and Court staff. -- The Court appoints Schleicher as Class Representative, provisionally finding that she will adequately serve in that capacity. Further, having considered the factors outlined in Rule 23(g)(1), the Court designates Mason A. Barney and Tyler J. Bean of Siri & Glimstad LLP as Class Counsel. -- Preliminary settlement approval Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2), the Court finds, preliminarily and for settlement purposes only, that the relief provided for in the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. API specializes in customized payroll services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uREw7A at no extra charge.[CC] ARBORWORKS LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 21, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON TOVAR GONZALEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARBORWORKS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 1:22-cv-01030-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila Oberto entered an order as follows: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification must be filed no later than Feb. 21, 2025; 2. Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification must be filed no later than Mar. 21, 2025; 3. Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification must be filed no later than Apr. 18, 2025; 4. The motion for class certification shall be heard on May 14, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sheila K. Oberto, United States Magistrate Judge, subject to being taken under submission pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g); and 5. A status conference to set further scheduling dates is set for Aug. 14, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 7 before Magistrate Judge Oberto. Telephonic appearances are approved; all parties appearing telephonically shall call (888) 557-8511, access code 6208204# at the date and time for the conference. By no later than Aug. 7, 2025, the parties shall file and email to skoorders@caed.uscourts.gov in MS Word format a report providing (a) dates agreed to by all counsel for all remaining deadlines and (b) an updated status of the case. ArborWorks is a professional tree care firm that specializes in Utility Line Clearance and Vegetation Management across the West Coast. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RxFZtK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Meghan Higday, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Facsimile: (310) 862-6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com mh@melmedlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Greg S. Labate, Esq. Keahn N. Morris, Esq. Gal Gressel, Esq. Nina Montazeri, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: glabate@sheppardmullin.com kmorris@sheppardmullin.com ggressel@sheppardmullin.com nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com ARKANSAS: Plaintiffs' Bid for Summary Judgment OK'd in Farella -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABIGAIL FARELLA; LOGAN W. MURPHY; and All Others Similarly Situated, V. DISTRICT JUDGE A.J. ANGLIN; GREGG PARRISH; and JAY SAXTON, Case No. 5:22-cv-05121-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Brooks entered an order -- granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, -- denying Defendant Anglin's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court finds that the Motions are ripe and ready for review. On May 20, 2022, Bentonville Police Department ("BPD") officers arrested Abigail Farella for felony possession of a controlled substance, misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, and misdemeanor shoplifting. Ms. Farella and Mr. Murphy filed their Complaint in this matter on June 24, 2022, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals. They brought denial of right-to-counsel claims under the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on Nov. 15, 2022. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VA07cC at no extra charge.[CC] ATA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Fraud Suit in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gurkan Demir. The case is captioned as KEEGAN v. DEMIR et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08184-SDW-JBC (D.N.J., July 31, 2024). The nature of suit states fraud related violations. The Defendants include SEBNEM GULER DEMIR and ATA INTERNATIONAL, INC.[BN] Plaintiff Brian Keegan, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated is represented by: Harold M. Hoffman, Esq. 240 Grand Ave. Englewood, NJ 07631 Telephone: (201) 410-8223 E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net BELLA ELEVATOR: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Graves Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Graves v. Miller, Case No. 1:24-cv-01114-CRL-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rB9WMU at no extra charge.[CC] BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Berl Files Suit in W.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against BMW of North America, LLC. The case is styled as Laura Berl, Seth Berl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-NKM (W.D. Va., Aug. 27, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. BMW of North America, LLC -- https://www.bmwusa.com/ -- is a car repair and maintenance service in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew David Sarrett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PC 626 East Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 905-9900 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: drew@clalegal.com - and - Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. Leonard Anthony Bennett CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Phone: (757) 930-3660 Email: craig@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com BRIDGETON WEST: Swartz Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- HELEN SWARTZ, individually, on her behalf and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIDGETON WEST 13 FEE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06312 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for injunctive relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and for damages pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law and New York Civil Rights Law. The Defendant owns the Walker Hotel Greenwich Village which is located in New York City (hereafter referred to as the property, subject property, or hotel). Plaintiff Swartz is a Florida resident, is sui juris, and qualifies as an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. Ms. Swartz has multiple sclerosis, is mobility impaired, and uses an electric scooter to ambulate. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers at the subject property which have impaired her use of the facilities and the amenities offered, and have endangered her safety at the facilities and her ability to access the facilities' facilities and use the restrooms. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the property and has reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to discrimination in violation of the ADA by the Defendant, says the suit. Due to Defendant's alleged discrimination and failure to provide accessibility by removing barriers to access at its property as discussed in this complaint, the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and other injuries. Bridgeton West 13 Fee, LLC is a property management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Rotbart, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRANDON A. ROTBART, P.A. 11098 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 401-18 Miami, FL 33161 Telephone: (305) 350-7400 E-mail: rotbart@rotbartlaw.com BRONSON NUTRITIONALS: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Edery Herrera, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. BRONSON NUTRITIONALS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06445 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.bronsonvitamins.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. BRONSON NUTRITIONALS, LLC, operates the Bronson online retail store, as well as the Bronson interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal BROOKLINEN INC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BROOKLINEN, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06340 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.brooklinen.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BUKHARI GROUP: Initial OK Settlement Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNA CAMPBELL, SHAKEN ROBINSON, and KEVAUGHN ROBINSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. BUKHARI GROUP LLC, NAFEES BUKHARI, an individual, ALI BUTT, an individual, 4399 BRONX CHICKEN LLC, BAYCHESTER CHICKEN BG LLC, 3555 WHITE PLAINS BG LLC, 3411 JEROME AVE CORP., and CONEY FOOD OF NY LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02813-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Peggy Kuo entered an order denying without prejudice the Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. If the parties file a revised agreement and motion that addresses the Court's concerns, they should also set forth and evaluate the legal standard for certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action. I find that the Settlement Agreement does not satisfy the requirements of either Rule 23 or FLSA, and, therefore, decline to grant preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. a. Inadequate Relief I find that the Settlement Agreement does not provide adequate relief for the Class Members because the method by which Individual Settlement Payments will be calculated and distributed is problematic. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, 3 Defendants agree to pay a settlement amount of up to $400,000.00. After deductions—all of which are subject to Court approval—of up to $133,333.33 for attorneys' fees and $5,000.00 in expenses, up to $12,500.00 for Settlement Administrator fees, and anticipated service payments of $35,000.00, the Net Settlement Amount will be distributed as Individual Settlement Payments to Plaintiffs and Qualified Class Members, i.e., those Class Members who do not opt out and who submit a valid claim. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the FLSA, New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the New York City Fair Workweek Law ("Fair Workweek Law"). On Feb. 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the Preliminary Approval Motion with Defendants' consent. On April 26, 2024, after the Court requested more information about the FLSA collective, the Plaintiffs submitted supplemental documentation in support of the Preliminary Approval Motion, including an amendment to the Settlement Agreement. The Court held a Preliminary Approval Hearing on June 21, 2024. Bukhari Group delivers tailored IT services and provides technology consultation, implementation, management, support, and application development services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fcjw1f at no extra charge.[CC] CAKE 5332: Alvarez Wins Conditional Collective Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSANGELICA ALVAREZ and SHAHRAM SHAHANDEH, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAKE 5332, LLC, And ABDUL HAMIDEH, Case No. 4:22-cv-00697-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action certification. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to demonstrate that they were subject to the Defendants' single decision, policy or plan, making this case appropriate for conditional certification. The Court finds that the statute of limitations for putative class members shall be tolled from the filings of Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification until the close of the opt-in period. Furthermore, the Court approves the form of notice attached to the motion as Doc. No. 62-3. The opt-in period for this conditionally certified collective action will be 90 days from the date of this Order; the last date to timely opt-in to this action will be NOVEMBER 17, 2024. The Plaintiffs Rosangelica Alvarez and Shahram Shahandah are current and former hourly restaurant servers who were paid under a "tip credit." The Plaintiffs allege that they and the other workers on whose behalf they bring this action were not paid minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ujzo6e at no extra charge.[CC] CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Musquiz Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kelly Musquiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. California Physicians' Service doing business as: Blue Shield of California, Verint Systems Inc., Case No. 30-02024-01410995-CU- was removed from the Orange County Superior Court of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 23, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01856-JVS-KES to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. California Physicians' Service doing business as Blue Shield of California http://www.blueshieldca.com/-- is a mutual benefit corporation and health plan founded in 1939 by the California Medical Association.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Andrews, Esq. Christin Kyungsik Cho, Esq. DOVEL AND LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Fax: (310) 656-7069 Email: stephen@dovel.com christin@dovel.com The Defendants are represented by: Rebekah S. Guyon, Esq. Adam M. Korn, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 586-7716 Fax: (310) 586-0225 Email: guyonr@gtlaw.com adam.korn@gtlaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Shah Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAL SHAH, GARY INGRAHAM, DEIA WILLIAMS, and DEVIN ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, d/b/a CAPITAL ONE, d/b/a CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, d/b/a CAPITAL ONE, N.A., d/b/a CAPITAL ONE SHOPPING, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-05985 (N.D. Cal., August 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of express and implied contract, unjust enrichment, bailment, declaratory judgment, breach of confidence, and violations of Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Consumer Protection Law, Consumer Privacy Act, Customer Records Act, Invasion of Privacy Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to unrelated third parties the personal and financial information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated customers without consent. Capital One used its website to collect and disclose customers' personal and financial information to third parties uninvolved in the provision of financial services by configuring and implementing code-based tracking devices into its website. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights and suffered damages. Capital One Financial Corporation, d/b/a Capital One, d/b/a Capital One, National Association, d/b/a Capital One, N.A., d/b/a Capital One Shopping, is a financial institution doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Lyons, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: nlyons@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Emily E. Schiller, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com eschiller@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CAREFIRST INC: Attias Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANTAL ATTIAS, et al., v. CAREFIRST, INC., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00882-CRC (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Cooper entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and motion for leave to bring an interlocutory appeal. In April 2014, hackers gained unauthorized access to the internal computer systems of health insurance company CareFirst, Inc. Plaintiffs, a group of CareFirst's customers whose information was exposed in the breach, filed this class action lawsuit alleging claims for breach of contract and violations of the consumer protection laws of Maryland and Virginia. And in its most recent opinion, the Court certified a contract class whose recovery is likely limited to nominal damages because, as the Court held in another prior opinion, mitigation expenses associated with a data breach are not considered actual damages under D.C. law. The Plaintiffs now ask the Court to permit them to pursue an interlocutory appeal to clarify whether mitigation expenses are actual damages for their breach-of-contract claim. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request reconsideration of the Court’s holding that they may not recover those expenses. The Court finds relevant, as well, the relatively minimal mitigation measures (on top of the two years of free credit monitoring and identity-theft protection CareFirst gave to all affected customers) that would have been appropriate under the circumstances. No Social Security or credit card numbers were leaked in the breach. Attias IV, 344 F.R.D. at 54. In the alternative, Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its holding that mitigation expenses do not constitute actual damages under D.C. law. The Plaintiffs are District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia residents whose health insurance was provided by the Defendant CareFirst, Inc. CareFirst provides health benefit services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K1Ch1W at no extra charge.[CC] CARMICHAEL INTERNATIONAL: Yates Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Milton Yates, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CARMICHAEL INTERNATIONAL SERVICE, a California corporation; KINTETSU WORLD EXPRESS, a California corporation; KWE GROUP, a California corporation; APL LOGISTICS AMERICAS, LTD., a California corporation; APL LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2403566 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 23, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01814. On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed his unverified Complaint ("State Court Action"). The Action asserts claims for: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Pay Meal Period Premiums; Failure to Permit Rest Periods or Pay Rest Period Premiums; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; and Violations of the Unfair Competition Law (California Business & Professions Code).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jared L. Palmer, Esq. Carolyn B. Hall, Esq. Ethan Lai, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-442-4810 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 Email: jared.palmer@ogletree.com carolyn.hall@ogletree.com ethan.lai@ogletree.com - and - Ricardo R. Bours, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Esplanade Center III, Suite 800 2415 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 602-778-3700 Facsimile: 602-778-3750 Email: ricardo.bours@ogletree.com CEDAR FAIR: Walker Seeks Leave to File Todd Declaration ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONEVA WALKER, et al., v. CEDAR FAIR, L.P., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02176-JGC (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file declaration of Dr. Todd in support of class certification under seal. The Declaration contains references to material and testimony designated as Confidential by Defendant. The Plaintiffs request permission for this Court to receive the filing in such manner. Cedar provides entertainment facilities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0YWZBB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Facsimile: (440) 352-3469 E-mail: nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com - and - Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com - and - Richard M. Kerger, Esq. Kimberly A. Conklin, Esq. THE KERGER LAW FIRM, LLC 4159 N. Holland-Sylvania Rd. Suite 101 Toledo, OH 43623 Telephone: (419) 255-5990 Facsimile: (419) 255-5997 E-mail: rkerger@kergerlaw.com kconklin@kergerlaw.com CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Seeks Sept. 5 Evidentiary Hearing --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AURORA ASTRO PRODUCTS, LLC, PIONEER CYCLING & FITNESS, LLP; and those similarly situated, v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC, SUZHOU SYNTA OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., SYNTA CANADA INT'L ENTERPRISES LTD., SW TECHNOLOGY CORP., OLIVON MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., OLIVON USA, LLC, NANTONG SCHMIDT OPTOELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO., LTD., PACIFIC TELESCOPE CORP., COREY LEE, DAVID SHEN, SYLVIA SHEN, JACK CHEN, JEAN SHEN, JOSEPH LUPICA, DAVE ANDERSON, LAURENCE HUEN, and DOES 1-50, Case No. 5:20-cv-03642-EJD (N.D. Cal.),the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for an evidentiary hearing and set the hearing concurrently with DPPs' motion for class certification and Defendants' Daubert motion on Sept. 5, 2024. On May 20, 2024, DPPs filed their motion for class certification and accompanying report by their expert, Dr. Zona. On June 21, 2024, the Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order setting the deadlines for Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and DPPs' Reply for July 15, and Aug. 5, 2024, respectively. Celestron manufactures life science equipment. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KmjlDM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Noah Hagey, Esq. Matthew Borden, Esq. Andrew Levine, Esq. Ellis E. Herington, Esq. Yekaterina Kushnir, Esq. BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP 747 Front Street, 4th floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 599-0210 Facsimile: (415) 276-1808 E-mail: hagey@braunhagey.com borden@braunhagey.com levine@braunhagey.com herington@braunhagey.com kushir@braunhagey.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Frost, Esq. John Maatta, Esq. Joshua Stambaugh, Esq. Lawrence J.H. Liu, Esq. FROST LLP 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 254-0441 E-mail: chris@frostllp.com john@frostllp.com josh@frostllp.com lawrence@frostllp.com - and - Shauna A. Izadi, Esq. IZADI LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 13155 Noel Rd, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75240 E-mail: sizadi@izadilegal.com CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Mudahy Must Show Cause Why Suit Should Continue ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Najuah Mudahy, v. Centene Management Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00055-GW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order converting the Sept. 5, 2024, hearing on the motion for class certification into an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. By noon on Sept. 2, 2024, the parties shall either stipulate to a dismissal of the action or file a joint status report indicating why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. On Sept. 15, 2023, the Court granted the parties' stipulation requesting a continuance of class discovery and class certification in light of the parties' mediation. The motion for class certification was to be filed by June 17, 2024, The Defendant's opposition was to be filed by July 29, 2024, and Plaintiff's reply was to be filed by Aug. 19, 2024. Each of these deadlines has passed, no action has been taken in this matter, and the Court has not been apprised of any status updates in the intervening year since approving the operative scheduling stipulation. The Court previously indicated that there will be no further continuances granted as to the motion for class certification. Centene provides services to government-sponsored healthcare programs. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LrIGPZ at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Oct. 4 Hearing on Enforcement of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE BAIRD, et al., v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order setting the following briefing schedule for Defendant's motion to enforce settlement: a. Defendant's deadline to file moving papers: Aug. 30, 2024 b. Plaintiff's deadline to file an opposition: Sept. 13, 2024 c. Defendant's deadline to file a reply: Sept. 20, 2024 d. Hearing on the Motion to Enforce Settlement: Oct. 4, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. The court will consider whether to vacate the denial of the Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion after it rules on the Defendant's anticipated Motion to Enforce Settlement. On Aug. 12, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Reopen Act. The parties state Plaintiff Lance Baird has refused to sign the parties' settlement agreement and request the court reopen the action and set a briefing schedule for Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Denial of Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion as Moot and Defendant Charter Communications, Inc.'s Motion to Enforce Settlement. Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass media company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J9M7Fp at no extra charge.[CC] CHAS. C. PARKS: Pearson Balks at Mass Layoff Without Notice ----------------------------------------------------------- LARRY PEARSON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHAS. C. PARKS COMPANY d/b/a CHARLIE C. PARKS, CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01028 (M.D. Tenn., August 22, 2024) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after Defendant abruptly terminated several groups of employees, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff, terminating over 50 employees and at least 33% of active full-time employees. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable result of a mass lay off or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or around August 5, 2024 and within 90 days of that date and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN Act. Chas. C. Parks Company operates a manufacturing plant located in Gallatin, Tennessee, where Plaintiff and those he seeks to represent worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com miadevaia@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 980 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.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 CLEAN HARBORS: Parties in Fogg Must Continue Merits Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fogg v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-07626-MCA-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge James Clark, III entered an order as follows: 1. The parties shall move forward expeditiously with merits discovery despite the pendency of the parties' motions for class certification/decertification. 2. The Court will conduct a telephone status conference with the parties on Oct. 28, 2024, at 11:00 AM. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall initiate the call. Clean Harbors is an American provider of environmental and industrial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UgBKl5 at no extra charge.[CC] CLEARVIEW AI: Deadline for Settlement Exclusion Set September 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that consumers whose facial images Clearview AI collected without their consent for use in a biometric database could benefit from a recent settlement. The settlement benefits individuals whose facial images and/or biometric data Clearview AI stored in its biometric database. The settlement also benefits several statewide subclasses of class members in California, Illinois, New York and Virginia. According to the class action lawsuit, Clearview AI violated privacy and data protection laws by collecting facial images without consent from public websites, such as Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest. Clearview allegedly used these images to create a searchable facial recognition biometric database it sold access to. Clearview AI is a global biometric database company. Clearview hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undetermined sum to resolve the biometric privacy class action lawsuit. The company's contributions to the settlement fund will vary depending on various triggering events, such as an initial public offering, merger or sale of assets. Under the terms of the Clearview AI settlement, class members can receive a pro rata share of the settlement fund. Members of the Illinois subclass will receive 10 shares. Members of the California, New York and Virginia subclasses will receive five shares. All other class members will receive one share. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 20, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Jan. 8, 2025. To receive Clearview settlement payments, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 25, 2024. Who's Eligible Individuals whose facial images and/or biometric data Clearview AI stored in its biometric database and statewide subclasses for California, Illinois, New York and Virginia Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 10/25/2024 Case Name In re: Clearview AI Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00135, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Final Hearing 01/08/2025 Settlement Website ClearviewClassAction.com Claims Administrator In re Clearview AI Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2409 Portland, OR 97208-2409 (888) 851-3156 Class Counsel Tom Hanson LOEVY & LOEVY Defense Counsel James Thompson LYNCH THOMPSON LLP Rachel L Schaller BLANK ROME LLP [GN] CLOVER HEALTH: Continues to Defend Bond Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Clover Health Investments 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bond class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. In February 2021, the Company and certain of its directors and officers were named as defendants in putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee: Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.); Kaul v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00101 (M.D. Tenn.); Yaniv v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00109 (M.D. Tenn.); and Tremblay v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00138 (M.D. Tenn.). The complaints assert violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The Kaul action asserts additional claims under sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaints generally relate to allegations published in the Hindenburg Article. The complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired Clover securities during the class period (which begins on October 6, 2020, and, depending on the complaint, ends on February 3, 2021, or February 4, 2021), as well as certain other costs. In April 2021, the Middle District of Tennessee class actions were consolidated under Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.) as the lead case. On June 28, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which also generally relates to allegations published in the Hindenburg Article, but adds, among other things, allegations from confidential witnesses who purport to be former employees of the Company. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 28, 2021; that motion was denied on February 28, 2022. On February 14, 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 21, 2023, the parties to the securities class action entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the action. The Court approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice on October 3, 2023. Under the settlement, the class will receive $22 million dollars (less an award of fees and expenses to the plaintiffs' counsel), and the defendants (including the Company) received customary releases. The Company used $19.5 million in insurance proceeds to fund the settlement. The Company previously filed a lawsuit in Delaware state court against certain of its insurers for full payment of its liabilities related to this securities litigation. The Company intends to oppose any efforts by the carrier defendants to recoup insurance proceeds that they have advanced to date. Clover Health Investments Corp. is a physician enablement company, headquartered in Tennessee. [BN] COLE GROUP: Von Taplett Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cole Group, LLC. The case is styled as Eric Von Taplett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Cole Group, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00248 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Cole Group -- https://www.thecolegroup.com/ -- has decades of success assisting companies identify and hire quality and dependable personnel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com COMPASS INC: Antitrust Suits Stayed Pending Final OK of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Compass, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2024, that the company and its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit that allege, among other things, violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Two of the putative class action lawsuits, "March v. Real Estate Board of New York, et al.," No. 1:23-cv-09995 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on November 13, 2023, and Friedman v. Real Estate Board of New York, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09601 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 18, 2024, named the company as a defendant and allege, among other things, that the Real Estate Board of New York, and a number of real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. The March and Friedman matters are stayed pending final approval of the settlement agreement. The Friedman and March matters also allege violations of the Donnelly Act, and the March matter further seeks injunctive relief pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act. The Friedman and March matters are limited in scope to the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn, and Manhattan, respectively. Compass, Inc. provides an end-to-end platform for residential real estate agents that services seller and buyer clients. It includes an integrated suite of cloud-based software for customer relationship management, marketing, client service and other critical functionality, all custom-built for the real estate industry, which enables the company's core brokerage services and uses proprietary data, analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to deliver high value recommendations and outcomes for compass agents and their clients. CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend Casey Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- CONSOL Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Casey class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of two nonunion retired coal miners against CCC, COK, CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori, the Company's Chief Administrative Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia alleging ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care benefits. Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits" allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs' employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan. Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated. On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey. The Casey complaint was amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company LLC and eliminate defendant CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class of retirees. On October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class certification was denied on all counts. On July 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Order denying class certification. The Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiffs' appeal on August 14, 2020. On October 1, 2020, the District Court entered a pretrial order setting the trial date, which was held in February 2021. No ruling has been issued by the judge. The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to vigorously defend this suit. Consol Energy Inc. is a low-cost producer of high-quality bituminous coal, focused on the extraction and preparation of coal in the Appalachian Basin. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Continental Resources, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2024, that in April 2023, three separate putative class action lawsuits were consolidated under the caption "In re Continental Resources, Inc. Shareholder Litigation," Case No. CJ-2022-4162, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. In the consolidated action, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated former shareholders of the Company, allege that Mr. Hamm, certain trusts established for the benefit of Mr. Hamm and/or his family members, and the company's other directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the take-private transaction and seek: (i) monetary damages; (ii) the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuits; and (iii) other equitable relief. Continental Resources, Inc. is into the production of crude oil and natural gas based in Oklahoma. COTERRA ENERGY: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for Oct. 24 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Coterra Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on April 29, 2024, the company and plaintiffs reached a settlement in principle with regards to an October 2020 class action lawsuit styled "Delaware County Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Cabot Oil and Gas Corp., et. al." (M. D. Penn.), filed against the company, Dan O. Dinges, its then Chief Executive Officer, and Scott C. Schroeder, its then Chief Financial Officer, alleging that the company made misleading statements in its periodic filings with the SEC in violation of the Exchange Act. The formal settlement agreement was filed with the court on June 3, 2024. On June 27, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a final approval hearing for October 24, 2024. This settlement agreement remains subject to final approval by the court. The plaintiffs allege misstatements in the company's public filings and disclosures over a number of years relating to its potential liability for alleged environmental violations in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that such misstatements caused a decline in the price of the company’s common stock when it disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019 two notices of violations from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and an additional decline when it disclosed on June 15, 2020 the criminal charges brought by the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania related to alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, which prohibits discharge of industrial wastes. The court appointed Delaware County Employees Retirement System to represent the purported class on February 3, 2021. In April 2021, the complaint was amended to include Phillip L. Stalnaker, the company's then Senior Vice President of Operations, as a defendant. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, interest and attorney's fees. Coterra Energy Inc. is into crude petroleum and natural gas and is based in Houston TX. CRONOS GROUP: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Cronos 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 8, 2024, that the plaintiffs' reconsideration bid of the dismissal of the consolidated securities class suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On March 11 and 12, 2020, two alleged shareholders of the Company separately filed two putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer. The court consolidated the cases, and the consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, against all defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that certain of the Company's prior public statements about revenues and internal controls were incorrect based on the Company's disclosures relating to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors' review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel. The consolidated amended complaint does not quantify a damage request. The defendants moved to dismiss on February 8, 2021. On November 17, 2023, the court entered an order granting the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. On December 1, 2023, the shareholder plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the dismissal, requesting that the court instead dismiss the action without prejudice and permit the plaintiffs to seek leave to further amend the complaint. The reconsideration motion is pending. Cronos Group Inc. is a global cannabinoid company into advancing cannabis research, technology and product development. Its brand portfolio includes Spinach(R), Peace Naturals(R) and Lord Jones(R). CS DISCO: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending -------------------------------------------------- CS Disco 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 bid to dismiss the amended complaint is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 19, 2023, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York, alleging violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false or misleading statements about the factors that were driving revenue growth between July 21, 2021 and August 11, 2022. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, costs, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On December 12, 2023, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On January 8, 2024, the Court transferred the case to the United States District Court in the Western District of Texas. On March 8, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On May 10, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. CS Disco, Inc. -- https://csdisco.com/ -- provides software as a service solutions.[BN] CSM-KEY BISCAYNE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. CSM-KEY BISCAYNE EQUITIES, LLC; MILANEZZA LLC d/b/a MILANEZZA; and SIR PIZZA ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a SIR PIZZA, Case No. 1:24-cv-23273-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 27, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the business located within the Commercial Property and Restaurant Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, Restaurant Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property, Restaurant Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property, Restaurant Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property, and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. CSM-KEY BISCAYNE EQUITIES, LLC, owned and operated a commercial property located in Key Biscayne, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com CVS PHARMACY: Parties Seek to Modify Briefing Sched in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE ONE, RICHARD ROE, in his capacity as executor for JOHN DOE TWO, JOHN DOE SIX; and JOHN DOE SEVEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and for the benefit of the general public, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; CAREMARK CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY PHARMACY, L.L.C.; GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C.; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH, L.L.C.; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-01031-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as follows: Item New [Proposed] Deadline Motion for Class Certification Nov. 1, 2024 Opposition for Motion for Class Certification Jan. 15, 2025 Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification Feb. 12, 2025 Hearing on Motion for Class Certification March 13, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. CVS distributes pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RRN1QH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. Edith M. Kallas, Esq. Henry C. Quillen, Esq. Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 16970 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 674-6641 Facsimile: (855) 274-1888 E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com jwhatley@whatleykallas.com ekallas@whatleykallas.com hquillen@whatleykallas.com - and - Jerry Flanagan, Esq. Benjamin Powell, Esq. CONSUMER WATCHDOG 6330 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 250 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 392-0522 E-mail: jerry@consumerwatchdog.org ben@consumerwatchdog.org The Defendants are represented by: Enu Mainigi, Esq. Craig D. Singer, Esq. Grant A. Geyerman, Esq. Benjamin W. Graham, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 - and - John J. Atallah, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street, Ste. 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 972-4500 Facsimile: (213) 486-0065 DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Dismissal of Rosencrants Suit Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Danimer Scientific 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 13, 2024, that Darryl Keith Rosencrants has filed an appeal in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York over the dismissal of their class suit. On May 14, 2021, a class action complaint was filed by Rosencrants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on May 18, 2021, a class action complaint was filed by Carlos Caballeros in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, on May 18, 2021, a class action complaint was filed by Dennis H. Wilkins also in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, and on May 19, 2021, a class action complaint was filed by Elizabeth and John Skistimas in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Each plaintiff or plaintiffs brought the action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against the Company. The alleged class varies in each case but covers all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021 ("Class Period"). Plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and are pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints are substantially similar and are each premised upon various allegations that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding, among other things, our business, operations and compliance policies. Plaintiffs seek the following remedies: (i) determining that the lawsuits may be maintained as class actions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (ii) certifying a class representative, (iii) requiring Defendants to pay damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs and the class members by reason of the acts alleged in the complaints, and (iv) awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On July 29, 2021, the Georgia court transferred the Georgia cases to New York, and all four class actions have been consolidated into a single lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York. On January 19, 2022, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") was filed in the Eastern District of New York, naming as defendants the Company, its directors and certain of its officers as well as certain former directors (collectively, "Defendants"). The Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of a class consisting of (i) purchasers of shares of the Company during the Class Period, (ii) all holders of the Company's Class A common stock entitled to vote on the merger transaction between the Company and Meredian Holdings Group, Inc. consummated on December 28, 2020 and (iii) purchasers of Company securities pursuant to the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-4 that was declared effective on December 16, 2020 or the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 that was declared effective on February 16, 2021. The Amended Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10(b)-5(a)-(c) promulgated thereunder and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"). Plaintiffs seek the following remedies: (a) a determination that the lawsuit is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certifying Plaintiffs as class representative, (b) awarding compensatory and punitive damages allegedly sustained by the class members by reason of the acts set forth in the Amended Complaint and (c) awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, experts' fees and other costs. On September 30, 2023, the court issued an Order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss in full, dismissing Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, and denying Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. On October 27, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which remains pending. Danimer Scientific, Inc. is a performance polymer company specializing in bioplastic replacement for traditional petroleum-based plastics. The company is based in Bainbridge, Georgia. DAVID RAMSEY: Lampo Defendants' Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA PATRICK, et al., v. DAVID L. RAMSEY, III, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00630-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James Robart entered an order: -- denying the Lampo Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and Happy Hour's joinder thereto, and -- denying the Lampo Defendants' motion to stay pending the court's ruling on their motion to compel as moot. The court concludes that Defendants cannot invoke equitable estoppel to compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims. Thus, the court need not consider Plaintiffs' remaining arguments against arbitration, nor need it address the Lampo Defendants' motion to stay this case pending a decision on the motion to compel. The Plaintiffs filed this proposed class action against the Lampo Defendants and Happy Hour on April 28, 2023, and amended their complaint on Dec. 15, 2023. They bring claims against Defendants for engaging in deceptive conduct in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"); for negligently misrepresenting the nature of Reed Hein's services; and for conspiring with Reed Hein to convince Mr. Ramsey's listeners to enter into agreements with Reed Hein. On Feb. 21, 2024, the Lampo Defendants served requests for production asking Plaintiffs to produce their contracts with Reed Hein. The Plaintiffs are individuals who signed contracts with and paid money to non-party Reed Hein & Associates for assistance in "exiting" their obligations with respect to timeshares they owned at various resort properties. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VefPlq at no extra charge.[CC] DAVIDS NATURAL: Schoeps Must File Class Cert Bid by May 2, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDRA SCHOEPS, et al., v. DAVIDS NATURAL TOOTHPASTE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01978-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered a case management scheduling order: Event Deadline Proposed stipulated protective order Sept. 12, 2024 Last day to add parties or amend pleadings Oct. 18, 2024 Plaintiff's motion for class certification May 2, 2025 and class certification expert reports Defendant's opposition to motion for class June 2, 2025 certification and opposing class certification expert reports, Daubert motion(s) Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for July 2, 2025 class certification and rebuttal class certification expert reports, Daubert motions, and opposition(s) to Defendant's Daubert motion(s) Defendant's reply in support of Daubert July 25, 2025 motion(s), opposition to Plaintiff's Daubert motion(s) Plaintiff's reply in support of Daubert Aug. 1, 2025 motion(s) Close of fact discovery (class and merits) Oct. 14, 2025 Hearing on motion for class certification and Nov. 13, 2025 Daubert motions Davids provides natural toothpaste with a focus on sustainability. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zBklag at no extra charge.[CC] DAWN TO DUSK: Cifuentes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Cleicin Walfri Rabanales Cifuentes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BCH FIVE TOWNS LLC d/b/a CHICKIES and ROBERT MICHAEL REUVEN MOZOROSKY and ABRAHAM WEINBERG, as individuals, Case No. 1:24-cv-05984 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2024), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. Although Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 53 hours or more hours each week from in or around November 2023 until in or around February 2024, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer and cook. BCH FIVE TOWNS LLC d/b/a CHICKIES, is a New York domestic limited liability company, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 DEXCOM INC: Alonzo Sues Over False and Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------ Charlene Alonzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEXCOM INC., KEVIN R. SAYER, and JEREME M. SYLVAIN, Case No. 3:24-cv-01485-RSH-VET (S.D. Cal., Aug. 21, 2024), is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired DexCom securities between January 8, 2024 to July 25, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class") due to materially false and misleading statements. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning DexCom's expected revenue for the fiscal year 2024. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the DexCom's ability to capitalize on its growth potential to reach the projected record number of new patients and simultaneously outpace the prior fiscal year's gross margins, while scaling customer conversion to the new G7 platform. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of DexCom's salesforce; notably, that it was not truly equipped to execute on the Company's perceived growth potential. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase DexCom's securities at artificially inflated prices. On July 25, 2024, Dexcom announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2024 and reduced its revenue guidance for the full fiscal year 2024. The Company attributed its results and lowered guidance on their execution of "several key strategic initiatives" which "did not meet their high standards." Investors and analysts reacted immediately to DexCom's revelation. The price of DexCom's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $107.85 per share on July 25, 2024, DexCom's stock price fell to $64.00 per share on July 26, 2024, a decline of about 40.66% in the span of just a single day, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased DexCom common stock at artificially inflated Prices. DexCom is an international company that develops, manufactures, and distributes continuous glucose monitoring systems for diabetes management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 985-7290 Email: aapton@zlk.com DMCG INC: Abeyta Must File Reply Brief by Sept. 13 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT ABEYTA, v. DMCG, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07089-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order regarding discovery and setting new date for reply brief and hearing on class certification motion: -- The parties have submitted a discovery dispute regarding plaintiff's request for exemplars of fully executed contract packages pertaining to cosigners on DMCG, Inc. installment plans. -- The Court concludes that the documents are relevant and at the very least encompassed by plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents 19, which sought documents supporting any claims, defenses, or affirmative defenses that DMCG intends to assert. -- The Court finds it reasonable for DMCG to produce one executed contract per month from April 2021 to the present no later than Sept. 4, 2024. -- The Plaintiff's reply brief shall be due September 13, and the hearing on the class certification motion is continued from Sept. 20 to Oct. 4, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. DMCG is an Engineering Firm with a diversified practice covering the pharmaceutical, construction and healthcare industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0JdikV at no extra charge.[CC] DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Faces McClain Class Action Suit in S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DNA Diagnostics Center, LLC. The case is captioned as McClain v. DNA Diagnostics Center, LLC, Case No. 21:24-cv-00413-MWM (S.D. Ohio, July 31, 2024). The nature of suit states Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle demanding $5M in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Matthew W. McFarland. The Defendant operates a DNA paternity testing laboratory.[BN] Plaintiff Sedena McClain, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated is represented by: Christopher David Wiest, Esq. 50 E. Rivercenter Blvd, Ste., 1280 Covington, KY 41011 Telephone: (513) 257-1895 E-mail: chris@cwiestlaw.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Court Dismisses Turley Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- Draftkings 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 on January 9, 2023, Simpson G. Turley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action against the company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 29, 2024, the court granted DraftKings' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that he was a contestant in the company's daily fantasy showdown contest for the January 2, 2023 NFL game between the Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills. The Bengals-Bills Game was postponed and eventually cancelled due to Damar Hamlin collapsing during the game. Plaintiff alleges that he was winning prizes in multiple showdown contests at the point in time that the Bengals-Bills Game was cancelled (with 5:58 remaining in the first quarter). Plaintiff alleges that, instead of paying out the prize money, the company refunded entry fees to contestants that entered showdown or flash draft fantasy contests. On May 8, 2023, plaintiff Turley and a new plaintiff (Erik Ramos) filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, and unjust enrichment. Among other things, plaintiffs seek statutory damages, monetary damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and interest. Draftkings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming company that provides users with online sports betting, online casino and daily fantasy sports product offerings, as well as retail sportsbook, media and other consumer product offerings. DRAFTKINGS INC: Loses Motion to Dismiss Consumer Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Deubert, writing for Forbes, reports that when sports betting was legalized in Massachusetts in August 2022, Boston'based DraftKings made the Commonwealth the target of aggressive advertising. As sports fans have become all too aware in recent years, such advertising is ubiquitous as the major sports betting operators fight for market share. In December 2023, two DraftKings customers, represented by a public health advocacy group, initiated a putative class action lawsuit alleging that certain of DraftKings' promotional practices violated Massachusetts consumer protection and false advertising laws. The Superior Court of Massachusetts just denied DraftKings' motion to dismiss the case, subjecting its practices to further interrogation and the possibility of substantial financial liability. Massachusetts' Sports Betting Law On August 10, 2022, Massachusetts became the 36th state to legalize some form of sports betting. With a large and passionate sports fan base, and extensive preexisting culture of illegal sports betting, it was a big win for the legal sports betting operators. The text of the law -- and that it took so long to pass -- is also reflective of particularized concerns in Massachusetts. Contemporaneous with the law's passage, there was considerable discussion around problem gambling, a term that includes gambling addiction and other harmful, repetitive gambling behaviors. However, as the Boston Globe reported at the time, the Commonwealth did not know how many problem gamblers there were. The most recent study, published in 2015, found that about 2% of Massachusetts adults had a gambling problem, about the same as most other states. There were and are concerns that in fact Massachusetts has a particularly large gambling problem. For this reason, the Massachusetts law contains extraordinary consumer protections. The law includes voluntary exclusion lists and other common regulations but also: (1) requires operators to submit a problem gambling plan annually, in consultation with the department of public health; (2) prohibits lines of credit; (3) prohibits the use of credit cards; (4) creates a Sports Wagering Fund to distribute sports wagering revenues to a variety of youth programs; and, (5) requires the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to research "the social and economic effects of sports wagering in the commonwealth and to obtain scientific information relative to the neuroscience, psychology, sociology, epidemiology and etiology of sports wagering" and to "make scientifically'based recommendations" on an annual basis. The Law In Practice As anticipated, there was a large market for legal sports betting in the waiting. According to data from the Gaming Commission, between August 2023 and July 2024, an average of $556,068,998 was wagered every month. On average, $280,525,282 (50.5%) of that was wagered with DraftKings, by far the market leader in the state. The Commonwealth has collected average monthly taxes of $10,130,016 on those wagers. Nevertheless, handles of those amounts do not come without some concerns. Although sports betting did not begin in Massachusetts until March 2023, a recent report from the Gaming Commission concerning gambling activity in 2022 identified that 31% of gamblers "could be classified as problem gamblers." The Consumer Lawsuit On December 8, 2023, two DraftKings accountholders sued the sports betting operator alleging that one of its promotional offerings violates Massachusetts consumer protection and false advertising laws. Specifically, the plaintiffs take issue with a promotional offer through which DraftKings offered new customers a "$1,000 Deposit Bonus" for opening a new account. According to the plaintiffs, it looked like a new account of any value would automatically receive an additional $1,000 for wagering. In fact, the plaintiffs allege, the $1,000 bonus was a ruse only discoverable through the "unreadable" fine print. In order to obtain the bonus, a customer would have to meet three criteria: (1) deposit at least $5,000 initially; (2) make at least $25,000 in wagers within 90 days; and (3) the $25,000 in wagers would have to be bets with odds of "'300 or longer" (bet $300 to win $100). According to the plaintiffs, these requirements would leave customers "chasing the money" and "statistically likely to lose money." To this point, plaintiffs allege that "they would have had to wager an average of more than $276 gambling on sports every day for three months" to meet the bonus requirements. Because the bonus was directed to new sports bettors, plaintiffs alleged that the promotion was intentionally deceptive and predatory. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Massachusetts citizens who opened a DraftKings account in response to the bonus offer. They are represented by the Public Health Advocacy Institute, a Boston'based non'profit that pursues litigation and legislative changes to protect and promote consumer health. The organization has its roots in the anti'smoking movement. Mark Gottlieb, one of the Institute's attorneys, said at the time that the lawsuit was filed that the "market for sports gambling is simply out of control" and hoped this action would be "the first of many" challenging the industry. DraftKings sought to have the case dismissed, principally arguing that its website adequately identified the terms and conditions of the offer about which the plaintiffs complain. Moreover, it argued that no reasonable customer could have been misled by the terms and conditions. Justice Debra A. Squires'Lee of the Superior Court of Massachusetts disagreed. On a motion to dismiss, where the court is required to take everything the plaintiff alleges as true, the court stated "while, based on my review of the small print provided with the Complaint, the terms and conditions disclosed to Plaintiffs accurately describe the very conditions about which Plaintiffs now complain, the overall deceptiveness of the mobile app and website, sign up process, and terms and conditions cannot be resolved without additional information." The case will now proceed to discovery where the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to obtain that additional information -- specifically, documents and emails concerning DraftKings' advertising practices. They will also be able to question DraftKings' employees under oath about the same. Massachusetts regulators may be interested in what is uncovered. Moreover, the Justice's comments suggest that she believes a jury will ultimately have to decide whether DraftKings' advertising was misleading. Lastly, the consumer protection law under which the consumers sued provides for potential double or triple damages. For all of those reasons, DraftKings is likely evaluating a potential settlement of the matter. If the number of Massachusetts residents who signed up for the offer at issue is manageable, providing them some kind of reimbursement could save them further legal and financial headaches. DraftKings did not respond to a request for comment. [GN] DRIVEN BRANDS: Continues to Defend GCERS Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Driven Brands Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Genesee County Employees' Retirement System class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v. Driven Brands Holdings Inc., et al. – On December 22, 2023, Genesee County Employees' Retirement System filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (the "Court") against the Company as well as a current and a former Company executive (the "Individual Defendants") alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by the Company, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the Individual Defendants. Genesee County Employees' Retirement System, Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, and Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (collectively the "Michigan Funds") moved for appointment as lead plaintiffs and for Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP to be appointed as lead counsel for the purported class. The Michigan Funds purport to represent a class of stockholders who purchased Company shares between October 27, 2021 and August 1, 2023. On March 5, 2024, the Michigan Funds filed a notice of unopposed motion asking the Court to grant their prior motion to appoint them as lead plaintiffs. On May 31, 2024, the Court granted the Michigan Funds' motion. The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against the action. Driven Brands Holdings Inc. is an automotive services company, with its headquarters at 440 South Church Street, Suite 700, Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] EARNIN: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hidden Interest Payments ---------------------------------------------------------------- Troutman Pepper, writing for JDSupra, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against EarnIn, a FinTech provider of Earned Wage Access services, alleging that its optional fees and tips constitute hidden interest payments. The complaint claims that EarnIn's practices violate Georgia's Payday Loan Act and the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). According to the complaint, EarnIn advertises its product as a way for consumers to access wages before payday, allowing users to receive up to $100 in advances each day and up to $750 per pay period. EarnIn currently offers a standard advance, which is deposited into a bank account within a few days, and an expedited advance, which is deposited within a few minutes. To obtain an expedited advance, users must pay a "lightning speed fee," which ranges from $1.99 to $3.99. Additionally, before users can obtain an advance, there is a screen that enables the consumer to pay a "tip," with a default "tip" selected. To avoid paying a tip, the consumer may change the tip amount to zero. The plaintiffs argue that the expedited funding fees and tips should be considered interest. According to the complaint, these fees yield annual percentage rates (APRs) averaging 284%. Key Allegations: -- Promise to Repay: According to the plaintiffs, EarnIn "requires its advances to be repaid" on the consumer's next payday and ensures repayment by requiring the consumer to: 1) link a bank account to the EarnIn app; 2) authorize EarnIn to automatically debit the account on payday; and 3) have an employer that pays the consumer regularly. Although the contracts provided that EarnIn had limited means of recourse against consumers, the contracts did not warrant "that there is no obligation to repay." -- Excessive Fees and Hidden Interest: The plaintiffs claim that EarnIn's fees and tips are essentially hidden interest payments, resulting in APRs that are significantly higher than those of traditional small-dollar lenders. For instance, one plaintiff allegedly received a $100 advance and paid a $3.99 expedited deposit fee, which -- if the fee were interest -- translated to an APR of over 145%. -- Violation of the Georgia Payday Loan Act: The complaint asserts that EarnIn's product violates Georgia law, which prohibits making loans of $3,000 or less without proper licensing. According to the plaintiffs, EarnIn is neither a bank nor licensed under any Georgia statute. -- Violation of TILA: The plaintiffs also allege that EarnIn's transactions were covered by TILA but EarnIn failed to provide TILA disclosures, including the "amount financed," "finance charge," "annual percentage rate," and "total of payments." The plaintiffs are seeking several forms of relief, including treble damages; restitution for any principal, interest, fees, or other charges paid; a declaration that the loans were void ab initio; and an order preventing EarnIn from attempting to collect its cash advances. [GN] EIDP INC: Must Oppose Banks Class Cert Bid by Nov. 25 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORIS BANKS, et al., v. EIDP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01672-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Hall entered an order modifying schedule as follows: Event Current Amended Deadline Deadline Class Certification Discovery June 25, 2024 June 25, 2024 Cut-Off Plaintiffs Motion for Class Aug. 19, 2024 Aug. 26, 2024 Certification and Brief in Support of Motion; Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert Disclosures Deadline for Deposition of Oct. 18, 2024 Oct. 25, 2024 Plaintiffs' Class Experts Defendants' Opposition to Nov. 18, 2024 Nov. 25, 2024 Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion; Defendants' Class Certification Expert Disclosures and Objections to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert Disclosures Deadline for Deposition of Dec. 20, 2024 Jan. 3, 2025 Defendants' Class Experts Plaintiffs' Answering Response Aug. 28, 2024 Sept. 4, 2024 deadline EIDP's Reply Brief deadline Sept. 4, 2024 Sept. 11, 2024 EIDP provides seeds and crop protection products for the agriculture industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ml1WP5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq. David T. Crumplar, Esq. Patrick C. Gallagher, Esq. JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A. 10 Corporate Circle – Suite 301 New Castle DE 19720-2418 Telephone: (302) 656-5445 E-mail: tom@jcdelaw davy@jcdelaw.com pat@jcdelaw.com The Defendant are represented by: Catherine A. Gaul, Esq. Andrew Colin Mayo, Esq. Randall J. Teti, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. 500 Delaware Avenue – Floor 8 Wilmington DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 E-mail: cgaul@ashbygeddes.com amayo@ashbygeddes.com rteti@ashbygeddes.com - and - Brian D. Tome, Esq. REILLY, McDEVITT & HENRICH, P.C. 1013 Centre Road – Suite 210 Wilmington DE 19805 Telephone: (302) 777-1700 E-mail: btome@rmh-law.com - and - Kelly E. Farnan, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 E-mail: farnan@rlf.com - and - Gerry Gray, Esq. DOROSHOW, PASQUALE, KRAWITZ & BHAYA 14 Village Square Smyrna DE 19977 Telephone: (302) 508-2140 E-mail: GerryGray@dplaw.com - and - Kaan Ekiner, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 1201 North Market Street – Suite 1001 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-2035 E-mail: kekiner@cozen.com - and - David A. Schlier, Esq. McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP Renaissance Centre 405 North King Street – Floor 8 Wilmington DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-6300 EW-mail: dschlier@mccarter.com ENDAVA PLC: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Mueller Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- HENDRIK MUELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENDAVA, PLC, JOHN COTTERELL, and MARK THURSTON, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06423 (S.D.N.Y., August 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Endava's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Endava securities at artificially inflated prices between May 23, 2023, and February 28, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) demand for Endava's services was declining; (2) the company's clients delayed or canceled projects; (3) as a result, the company's fiscal 2023 and 2024 revenue and earnings would be adversely affected; and (4), as a result, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, the price of Endava's American Depository Shares plummeted $26.65, or nearly 42 percent, to close at $37.17, on unusually high trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant economic losses and damages. Endava, PLC is a software development company headquartered in London, England. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Jonathan Zimmerman, Esq. Nicholas S. Bruno, Esq. Matthew A. Peller, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com jzimmerman@scott-scott.com nbruno@scott-scott.com mpeller@scott-scott.com - and - Brian J. Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 Facsimile: (310) 388-0192 Email: brian@scott-scott.com ENOVIX CORP: Faces Walker Labor Suit in California Court -------------------------------------------------------- Enovix Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2024, that on March 8, 2023, a former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against Enovix in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. The case is captioned "Kody Walker v. Enovix Corporation," Case No. 23CV028923. It alleges, among other things, on a putative class-wide basis, that the failed to pay minimum wages, overtime and sick time wages, failed to reimburse employees for required expenses, failed to provide meal and rest periods, and issued inaccurate wage statements under the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders. Enovix Corporation manufactures Lithium-ion, or Li-ion, battery cells based in California. EPIC LANDSCAPE: Gomez Seeks to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE GONZALEZ GOMEZ, LEONEL QUINONES VARGAS, et. al. On behalf of themselves, and all other persons similarly situated, v. EPIC LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., Case No. 2:22-cv-02198-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g): 1. Certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the following classes: A. All H-2B employees who worked for Defendants as hourly Laborers anytime from May 30, 2017, until July 4, 2021, and who did not receive overtime compensation after having worked more than 40 hours in a workweek to pursue claims under a breach of contract claim; B. All citizen (non H-2B) employees who worked for Defendants as hourly Laborers from May 30, 2017, until July 4, 2021, and who did not receive overtime compensation after having worked more than 40 hours in a workweek to pursue claims under a third party beneficiary theory, and alternatively, an unjust enrichment theory; and C. All employees (both H-2B and citizen) who worked for Defendants as hourly Laborers in Missouri from May 30, 2019, until July 4, 2021, and who did not receive overtime compensation after having worked more than 40 hours in a workweek to pursue claims under the Missouri Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Law. 2. Certifying and appointing Jose Gonzalez Gomez as Class representative for the citizen hourly Laborer class identified as 1.B. above. 3. Certifying and appointing Plaintiff Leonel Quinones Vargas as Class representative for H-2B hourly Laborer class identified as 1.A. above. 4. Certifying and appointing Plaintiff Leonel Quinones Vargas as Class representative for the class seeking relief under Missouri Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Laws (class identified as 1.C. above). 5. Directing Defendants to provide the name, address, telephone number and email address (if available) of all H-2B hourly Laborers that are eligible for the class identified in 1.A. above so that notice of the class and their opportunity to opt- out can be provided. 6. Directing the Defendants to provide the name, address, telephone number and email address (if available) of all citizen (non H- 2B) hourly Laborers that are eligible for the class identified in 1.B. above so that notice of the class and their opportunity to opt-out can be provided. 7. Directing the Defendants to designate which individuals identified on the H-2B and citizen class lists are eligible for the class identified in 1.C. above so that notice of that class can be provided to them at the same time they are notified of the other class they are in. 8. Directing the Defendants to provide the Names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses for all class members not previously identified. 9. Directing the parties to meet and confer to distribute notice of class certification and subsequently proffer that to this Court for approval. 10. Designating and appointing Plaintiff's counsel of record, the Hodgson Law Firm LLC and Bertram & Graf, LLC.. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The evidence presented to this Court unequivocally demonstrates that Defendants have a common practice and policy of failing to pay its hourly Laborers overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendants uniformly classified its employees as exempt from overtime compensation. Defendants uniformly submitted annual H-2B applications stating that an hourly rate of pay at 1.5 times the standard rate of pay would be paid to H-2B workers. The Plaintiffs comprise a group of current and former hourly laborers who have worked for Defendants. The Defendants provide lawn care and landscaping for clients in Kansas and Missouri. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aKX9Fg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 3609 SW Pryor Rd. Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (816) 600-0117 Facsimile: (816) 600-0137 E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com - and - Timothy R. West, Esq. BERTRAM & GRAF, L.L.C. 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1925 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 523-2205 Facsimile: (816) 523-8258 E-mail: tim@bertramgraf.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sullivan "FCRA" Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Corinna Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00061-JGZ-BGM (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- granting her motion for class certification, -- appointing Plaintiff Corinna Sullivan as Class Representative for the Class, -- appointing Kazerouni Law Group, APC, as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), and -- setting out a notice plan for the Class. The Plaintiff has satisfied the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiff asserts that Equifax willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by failing to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons with an address within the United States whose Equifax credit report displayed a tradeline status of "UNAVAILABLE" with the past two (2) years of the filing of the complaint (the "Class")." Alternatively, the Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class pursuant to rule 23(b)(3): "All persons with an address within the United States who previously filed bankruptcy and whose Equifax credit report displayed a tradeline status of "UNAVAILABLE" within the past two (2) years of the filing of the complaint (the "Bankruptcy-specific Class")." Excluded from the proposed classes are Equifax's officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the proposed classes is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. Equifax is a national consumer reporting agency. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9EeHVC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 301 E. Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (8000 520-5523 E-mail: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com - and - Cy Hainey, Esq. HILLTOP LAW FIRM Phoenix, AZ 85068 Telephone: (602) 466-9631 Facsimile: (602) 466-9631 E-mail: cy@hilltoplawfirm.com EQUITY NATIONAL: Court Narrows Claims in Jaraczewski Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT JARACZEWSKI and JAS WHITNEY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. EQUITY NATIONAL TITLE & CLOSING SERVICES d/b/a SECURE COLLATEAL, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00274-SPB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Susan Paradise Baxter entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss and/or motion to strike class action allegations. 1. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's private cause of action under RULONA is granted and such claim is dismissed with prejudice; 2. Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied in all other respects; And 3. Defendants' motion to strike class action allegations is denied as premature, without prejudice to Defendants' right to object to the Plaintiffs' class certification at the appropriate time. The Defendant is a settlement service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FFn87d at no extra charge.[CC] EVENING POST: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Sosebee Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Wendy Sosebee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Evening Post Publishing Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04578-BHH (D.S.C., August 22, 2024) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, passport numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account information, credit card information, and driver's license numbers. On March 20, 2024, the Defendant became aware of suspicious activity on the network and initiated an investigation. Further investigation determined that Defendant's network was subject to unauthorized access between March 13 and March 20, 2024, and that certain files were acquire by an unknown actor while on the network. The Defendant issued a notice of data security incident on August 8, 2024 informing Plaintiff and members of the Class that an unknown and unauthorized user hacked into the network and acquired PII. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea their private information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, the suit further alleges. Plaintiff Sosebee is a former employee of Defendant Evening Post Publishing and a consumer of Defendant's publications. Evening Post Publishing Inc. is an independently held newspaper group and media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. 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: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com EVOLVE BANK: Faces Nieves Class Action Suit in S.D. Va. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evolve Bank & Trust. The case is captioned as Enrique Nieves, on behalf of himself and similarly situated v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Case No. 8:24-cv-01809-KKM-AEP (M.D. Fla., July 31, 2024). The suit alleges contract-related violations. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle. The Plaintiff is represented by:’ Stephanie Anne Casey, Esq. Julie Braman Kane, Esq. Sabrina S. Saieh, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Cir., Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134-7414 Telephone:(305) 456-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: scasey@colson.com julie@colson.com sabrina@colson.com FAMILY DOLLAR: Sendejo Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Roxanne Sendejo, Daniel Munguia, Saraphina Faber, Christine Esqibel, Terry Brown, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Dollar Tree Inc., Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Family Dollar, Inc., Family Dollar Services, Family Dollar LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00025 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 26, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-61575-AHS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American variety store chain.[BN] FIFTH THIRD BANK: Vogelsang Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fifth Third Bank National Association. The case is styled as Nicholas Vogelsang, and all those similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bank National Association, Case No. 24-003823-CI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., Aug. 26, 2024). The Case Type is stated as "Other Civil – Circuit" Fifth Third Bank -- https://www.53.com/ -- the principal subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, is a bank holding company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-907-1136 FIRST COMMUNITY: Settlement in Securities Class Suit for Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- First Community Bankshares, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2024, that on May 6, 2024, the bank agreed to settle a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, filed on June 24, 2022. The civil action alleges the bank breached its deposit account agreements and was unjustly enriched by collecting overdraft fees with respect to certain debit card transactions and by assessing more than one nonsufficient funds fee on items presented multiple times for payment. Under the settlement, which is subject to documentation and preliminary and final court approval. First Community Bankshares, Inc. is a financial holding company that offers wealth management and investment advice through its Trust Division and wholly owned subsidiary First Community Wealth Management. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Junks Stay of All Discovery --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MFS SERIES TRUST I, ET AL., V. FIRSTENERGY CORP., ET AL., Case No. 2:21-cv-05839-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley entered an order: (1) The Court vacates the existing stay; (2) The Court denies a stay of all discovery and allows all non- expert aspects of this litigation to resume despite the 23(f) appeal; (3) The Court grants a stay of all expert deadlines and required expert work during the pendency of the 23(f) appeal, or until further order from the Court (with the parties free to have their own expert(s) perform work as the party wishes); and (4) The Court extends the partial stay set forth above to the opt- out or Direct Action cases, Case Nos. 2:21-cv-05839 and 2:22- cv-00865, where the discovery and work involved would appear to be largely duplicative of Case No. 2:20-cv-03785. On June 6, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The Court granted the motion and certified a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FirstEnergy operates as a public utility holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c4SjZw at no extra charge.[CC] FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court OKs Stay of Expert Deadlines in Brighthouse ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIGHTHOUSE FUNDS TRUST II – MFS VALUE PORTFOLIO, ET AL., V. FIRSTENERGY CORP., ET AL., Case No. 2:22-cv-00865-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley entered an order: (1) The Court vacates the existing stay; (2) The Court denies a stay of all discovery and allows all non- expert aspects of this litigation to resume despite the 23(f) appeal; (3) The Court grants a stay of all expert deadlines and required expert work during the pendency of the 23(f) appeal, or until further order from the Court (with the parties free to have their own expert(s) perform work as the party wishes); and (4) The Court extends the partial stay set forth above to the opt- out or Direct Action cases, Case Nos. 2:21-cv-05839 and 2:22- cv-00865, where the discovery and work involved would appear to be largely duplicative of Case No. 2:20-cv-03785. On June 6, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The Court granted the motion and certified a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FirstEnergy operates as a public utility holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Em6u2d at no extra charge.[CC] FIT FOODS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mencia-Montes Due July 18, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUBEN MENCIA-MONTES, v. FIT FOODS DISTRIBUTION, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-01768-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order as follows: (1) The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case unless otherwise ordered by the Court. (2) The deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or other amendments to the pleadings, is sixty days after entry of this order unless stated otherwise below. (3) The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit a stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by the Court below, including discovery cut-offs and expert disclosure deadlines, is Aug. 30, 2024. (4) All disputes with respect to disclosures or discovery are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. (5) Unless otherwise ordered or stipulated, the parties shall meet and confer further in order to reach an agreement on an ADR process within 10 days of the date of this Order. Within that same time frame, the parties shall either (1) file the form entitled "Stipulation and (Proposed) order Selecting ADR Process" if an agreement is reached, or (2) file the form entitled "Notice of Need of ADR Phone Conference". (6) The parties shall comply with the Court's standing orders, which are available on the Court’s website and in the Clerk's Office. The following schedule and deadlines shall apply to this case: EVENT DATE OR DEADLINE Last Day to Request Leave to Amend 60 Days from Date of this the Pleadings per F.R.Civ.P 15 Order Last Day File Motion Class July 18, 2025 Certification Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions June 11, 2026 at 9:00 AM Final Pretrial Conference Sept. 17, 2026 at 1:30 PM Trial Oct. 5, 2026 at 9:00 AM Fit Foods is a Canadian company that manufactures and distributes a wide range of healthy lifestyle and sports supplement products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IV8nDs at no extra charge.[CC] FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Villanueva Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Villanueva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC d/b/a LA Fitness, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 24TRCV02107 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 21, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01841. The Plaintiff alleges Fitness unlawfully debited his bank account on a recurring basis without written authorization and refused to reimburse him when he disputed the allegedly unauthorized charges. The Plaintiff alleges the following claims for relief: violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA") and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Bryan A. Merryman, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433 Phone: (213) 620-7700 Facsimile: (213) 452-2329 Email: bmerryman@whitecase.com FLIGHTAWARE LLC: Chen Sues Over Failure to Implement Data Security ------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy Chen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLIGHTAWARE, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-03178 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 26, 2024), is brought arising out of Defendant's failures to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach") that, upon information and belief, contained personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other individuals ("the Class"). The Data Breach occurred in or around July 2024. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal information of individuals whose Private Information was maintained by Defendant, including Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, a wide variety of PII was implicated in the breach, including, name, addresses, and Social Security numbers. The Plaintiff and Class Members at no point knowingly provided their PII to Defendant and Defendant instead scraped their PII from non-public sources. To make matters even worse, Defendant did this without Plaintiff's and Class Members' consent or knowledge. The mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their medical and financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendant's platform. FlightAware is a provider of real-time and historical flight information and insights to the global aviation community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com FLORIDA COMMUNITY HEALTH: Capellan Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Diana Capellan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLORIDA COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, INC., Case No. 50-2024-CV-006431-XXXA-MB was removed from the Palm Beach County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 23, 2024, and assigned Case No. 9:24-cv-81037-XXXX. The Plaintiff alleges that FCHC's failure to protect her private information allowed an unauthorized party to access FCHC's systems and compromise her information. The Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable and injunctive relief.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. George, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite 302 Lake Worth, FL 33467 Phone: (561) 2326002 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 Email: dgeorge@4-justice.com eservice@4-justice.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 Email: sec@colevannote.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher W. Lee, Esq. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 100 SE Second Street, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131-2144 Phone: (305) 374-4400 Facsimile: (305) 579-0261 Email: christopher.lee@wilsonelser.com FLORIDA COMMUNITY: Orr Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled HARRIKIELLE ORR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLORIDA COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, INC., Case No. 50-2024-CV-006836-XXXA-MB, was removed from the Palm Beach County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 26, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 9:24-cv-81032 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to adequately secure and safeguard confidential and sensitive information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its systems following a cyberattack in June 2023. Florida Community Health Centers, Inc. is a healthcare services provider in Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher W. Lee, Esq. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 100 SE Second Street, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-4400 Facsimile: (305) 579-0261 Email: christopher.lee@wilsonelser.com FLORIDA COMMUNITY: Simmons Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled WILLIE B. SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLORIDA COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, INC., Case No. 50-2024-CV-006566-XXXA-MB, was removed from the Palm Beach County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 26, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 9:24-cv-81036 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to adequately secure and safeguard confidential and sensitive information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its systems following a cyberattack in June 2023. Florida Community Health Centers, Inc. is a healthcare services provider in Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher W. Lee, Esq. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 100 SE Second Street, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-4400 Facsimile: (305) 579-0261 Email: christopher.lee@wilsonelser.com FLORIDA COMMUNITY: Sparnicht Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled C.S., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, by his parent, KATHERINE MARI SPARNICHT v. FLORIDA COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, INC., Case No. 50-2024-CV-006678-XXXA-MB, was removed from the Palm Beach County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 26, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 9:24-cv-81034 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to adequately secure and safeguard confidential and sensitive information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its systems following a cyberattack in June 2023. Florida Community Health Centers, Inc. is a healthcare services provider in Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher W. Lee, Esq. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 100 SE Second Street, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-4400 Facsimile: (305) 579-0261 Email: christopher.lee@wilsonelser.com FULL STEAM STAFFING: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Full Steam Staffing, LLC. The case is styled as Genesis Martinez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Full Steam Staffing, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0010464 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Full Steam Staffing -- https://www.fullsteamstaffing.com/ -- is a staffing and temp agency helping you find a job or find talent nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd., Ste. 300 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Studen Class Suit in Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- Funko 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 Studen class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On June 2, 2023, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, captioned Studen v. Funko, Inc., et al. The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly materially misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC, as well as in earnings calls and presentations to investors, regarding a planned upgrade to its enterprise resource planning system and the relocation of a distribution center, as well as by omitting material facts about the same subjects necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 17, 2023, the Court appointed lead plaintiff, and on August 29, 2023, the parties submitted a joint stipulated scheduling order. Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed October 19, 2023. The amendment adds additional allegations by including accounts from purported former employees and contractors. Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of investors who purchased or acquired Funko common stock between March 3, 2022 and March 1, 2023. On May 16, 2024, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave for Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. On July 1, 2024, Plaintiffs notified the Court of their decision to not amend their complaint, and the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on July 8, 2024. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 6, 2024, under the amended caption Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko, Inc., et al. Funko is a pop culture consumer products company that creates figures, plush, accessories, apparel, and homewares regarding movies, TV shows, videogames, musicians, and sports teams.[BN] GANNETT CO: Court Dismisses Bradley Suit w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BRADLEY, et al., v. GANNETT CO. INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01100-RDA-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Rossie Alston, Jr. entered an order: -- Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Corrected Motion to Dismiss. The motion is denied insofar as it seeks dismissal with prejudice, but the motion is granted in all other respects; -- Denying as moot the Defendant's original Motion to Dismiss; -- Dismissing without prejudice the Amended Complaint; -- Striking the class allegations from the Amended Complaint; -- Denying as moot the Motion to Certify Class based upon the granting of the Motion to Dismiss; -- Denying as moot the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction based upon the granting of the Motion to Dismiss; and -- Directing the Plaintiffs to file any second amended complaint within 30 days. The Proposed Class consists of "All individuals who were subject to defendant's [sic] Reverse Race Discrimination Policy described below and who 1) either work or worked for Gannett based on any form of contractual relationship 2) [sic] or were considered by Gannett to be placed into a position to perform work for the Defendant based on any form of contractual relationship." The Plaintiff Barry worked for Defendant from 2019 to 2020 as a multimedia local government reporter for The Progress-Index. The Defendant is a mass media holding company and one of the largest newspaper publishers in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wpExEw at no extra charge.[CC] GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Howard Due Sept. 6 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY HOWARD, ERI NOGUCHI, and SCOTT DIAS, on behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly situated, v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-04779-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order that: -- the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class certification and any expert report(s) in support shall be set for Sept. 6, 2024; and -- the Defendant's deadline to file any opposition and expert report(s) in support shall be set for Oct. 25, 2024. All other deadlines shall remain the same. On March 22, 2024, this Court stayed this case pending a ruling on the plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) Petition filed in Howard v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc. (No. 24-1384) (9th Cir.). On April 29, 2024, the Ninth Circuit denied the Rule 23(f) Petition. On May 10, 2024, this Court lifted the stay and held a case management conference on May 31, 2024, to reset the class certification briefing schedule. Gerber Products is an American purveyor of baby food and baby products. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=se54j2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: Bryan A. Merryman, Esq. Katherine Godar, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 620-7700 Facsimile: (213) 452-2329 E-mail: bmerryman@whitecase.com katherine.godar@whitecase.com GIFTROCKET INC: Seeks to Withdraw Bid to Deny Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gracie Baked LLC, et al. v. GiftRocket, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04019-RPK-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order withdrawing their pending motion to deny class certification. The Defendants' Motion seeks an order preemptively denying class certification because Plaintiffs' pleadings make clear no class can be certified here. The Defendants thus filed the Motion last year to avoid costly discovery given that discovery would not affect Plaintiffs' inability to meet their Rule 23 burden. GiftRocket specializes in providing online gift cards and e-gift certificates across various industries. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tJT5gT at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Megan O'Neill, Esq. DTO LAW 307 5th Ave, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (415) 630-4100 Facsimile: (213) 335‐7802 E-mail: moneill@dtolaw.com GKN DRIVELINE: Ayers FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES AYERS, DOYLE CAWTHON, JR., DEUAL STARR, AND DARRON GRAY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00581-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order as follows: (1) conditional certification of this action and for court- authorized notice pursuant to section 216(B) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2) approval of the proposed notice of this action and the consent and out-out forms; (3) a production of names, job titles, dates of employment with the Defendant, locations of employment with Defendant, last-known mailing addresses, last-known cell numbers, home phone numbers, personal email addresses, dates of birth, and last four digits of their SSNs of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order; and (4) ability to distribute the Notice and Opt-in Form via first class mail, email, and text message to all putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs. GKN Driveline manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VdsFTA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Hannah B. Simmons, Esq. Matthew S. Marlowe, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul DeCamp, Esq. Adriana S. Kosovych, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1227 25th St., N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 861-1819 Facsimile: (202) 296-2882 E-mail: PDeCamp@ebglaw.com AKosovych@ebglaw.com - and - Kevin S. Joyner, Esq. Vanessa N. Garrido, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 8529 Six Forks Road, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 787-9700 Facsimile: (919) 783-9412 E-mail: Kevin.joyner@ogletree.com Vanessa.garrido@ogletree.com GKN DRIVELINE: Ferges FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMKEKA FERGES and DARRICK PAYLOR on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00585-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order as follows: (1) conditional certification of this action and for court- authorized notice pursuant to section 216(B) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2) approval of the proposed notice of this action and the consent and out-out forms; (3) a production of names, job titles, dates of employment with the Defendant, locations of employment with Defendant, last-known mailing addresses, last-known cell numbers, home phone numbers, personal email addresses, dates of birth, and last four digits of their SSNs of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order; and (4) ability to distribute the Notice and Opt-in Form via first class mail, email, and text message to all putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs. GKN Driveline manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 19, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F4irUE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Hannah B. Simmons, Esq. Matthew S. Marlowe, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul DeCamp, Esq. Adriana S. Kosovych, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1227 25th St., N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 861-1819 Facsimile: (202) 296-2882 E-mail: PDeCamp@ebglaw.com AKosovych@ebglaw.com - and - Kevin S. Joyner, Esq. Vanessa N. Garrido, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 8529 Six Forks Road, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 787-9700 Facsimile: (919) 783-9412 E-mail: Kevin.joyner@ogletree.com Vanessa.garrido@ogletree.com GNRG LLC: Fact Discovery in Sharp Suit Due Oct. 22 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARION SHARP, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GNRG, LLC d/b/a MCDONALDS, Case No. 2:23-cv-03573-KNS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kai Scott entered a second amended scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed by: Oct. 22, 2024 -- All expert discovery shall be completed by: Nov. 22, 2024 -- Motions for summary judgment and for class Dec. 23, 2024 certification, or any other dispositive motions, shall be filed by: -- Responses to any such motions shall be Jan. 24, 2025 filed by: -- Any replies shall be filed by: Feb. 14, 2025 A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gSi8J0 at no extra charge.[CC] GOLDCO DIRECT: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Summerton, Jan v. Goldco Direct LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00238 (W.D. Wisc., Filed April 18, 2023), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order granting unopposed motion to extend Summerton's deadline to move for class certification. The court strikes the remainder of the case schedule. The parties are ordered to meet and confer and submit a joint proposal for a new case schedule by September 11, 2024. The court will hold a telephonic status conference on September 18, 2024, at 2:00 PM to reset the calendar. Plaintiff has been trying to get call data from defendant's vendor and is still working to resolve an enforcement action plaintiff brought against the vendor in the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff claims to need the data to move for class certification and so asks to move the deadline to September 30, 2024. The Defendant does not oppose the request. The court finds good cause to move the deadline but moving it will require reworking the remainder of the case schedule. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Goldco is a gold and silver provider.[CC] GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Reversal Ruling on Dismissed Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that its subsidiary Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed on February 11, 2022 and June 17, 2022, respectively, in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to Sea Limited's approximately $4.0 billion September 2021 public offering of ADS and approximately $2.9 billion September 2021 public offering of convertible senior notes, respectively. The trial court has dismissed the case but the Appellate Division for the First Department reversed the trial court's dismissal. The defendants moved to reargue or alternatively, for leave to appeal the reversal. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Sea Limited, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS Asia underwrote 8,222,500 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $2.6 billion and convertible senior notes representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.9 billion. On August 3, 2022, the actions were consolidated, and on August 9, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The defendants had previously moved to dismiss the action on July 15, 2022, with the parties stipulating that the motion would apply to the consolidated amended complaint. On May 15, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice, and on June 15, 2023, the plaintiffs moved for a rehearing or for leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint and also appealed. On May 28, 2024, the Appellate Division for the First Department reversed the trial court's dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint, and on June 27, 2024, the defendants moved to reargue or alternatively, for leave to appeal the reversal. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Junks Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2024, that its subsidiary Goldman Sachs and Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Array Technologies, Inc.'s (Array) $1.2 billion October 2020 initial public offering of common stock, $1.3 billion December 2020 offering of common stock and $993 million March 2021 offering of common stock. On July 5, 2023, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Array and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate of 31,912,213 shares of common stock in the three offerings representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $877 million. On December 7, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, and on May 19, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On July 5, 2023, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the amended consolidated complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a global financial institution that delivers a broad range of financial services to a large and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. GOOD TREE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Sumlin Says ----------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Good Tree International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06306 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 2024) is a civil rights action against Good Tree International for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.kingpalm.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase of cigarette wraps, which are rolling papers created for smoking products, on Kingpalm.com on July 19, 2024. Navigating through search results, he came across the website of the Defendant that offers natural smoking products, particularly their pre rolled cones made from organic palm leaves. However, he was unable to complete the purchase independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. These access barriers have caused Kingpalm.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Good Tree International's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Good Tree International, Inc. owns and operates the website that offers natural palm leaf wraps and smoking accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO: Dumire Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Dumire, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO COUNTY, INC. d/b/a BRASS FLAMINGO, A Florida Profit Corporation, RICHARD D. HILL, in his individual capacity, and MAUREEN MONREALE, in her individual capacity, Case No. 8:24-cv-02036 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 27, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the Florida Constitution, Article to seek unpaid minimum wages, including "kick-backs", liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was an integral part of the Defendants' business as an entertainer and dancer. Thus, Plaintiff was dependent on the Defendant and is an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Law. The Plaintiff only received tips from customers. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff worked the day shift approximately 3 times per week. The Plaintiff worked the night shift approximately 5 times per week. In addition to not being paid minimum wage, Plaintiff was also required to tip out approximately $95.00 per shift to other employees. The Plaintiff was also required to pay a house fee of $30 every shift. If Plaintiff did not pay the house fee, Defendants' advised Plaintiff that she would be fired. The Plaintiff participated in a "tip pool" while working for Defendant. The Defendant created the tip pool. The Defendant required its entertainers to participate in the tip pool. Tip pools are not intended to include "non-tipped" employees. The Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with proper notice that it would pay Plaintiff pursuant to a tip credit method. Hence, Defendant violated the terms of the tip credit and Florida Constitution's provision on minimum wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an entertainer for the Defendant from January 2022 to March 2024. GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO COUNTY, INC. d/b/a BRASS FLAMINGO's principal address is listed in Port Richie, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Hall, Esq. Annie Blanc, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7512 Email: ahall@theleachfirm.com ablanc@theleachfirm.com aporter@theleachfirm.com HADLEY TOWING: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Rivera Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAIME RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HADLEY TOWING EQUIPMENT, INC; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 24NWCV02336 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2024) alleges that Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with compliant meal breaks because the Defendant required Plaintiff to remain on call, on premises, and on duty during meal breaks. The Defendant allegedly rounded the Plaintiff's meal break punches, resulting in late or short meal breaks that falsely appeared compliant. Despite not being provided with compliant meal breaks, the Defendant did not pay premium pay for these missed breaks at Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from January 2, 2019, to March 15, 2024. HADLEY TOWING EQUIPMENT tows fire trucks, dune buggies, and military vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com dan@frontierlawcenter.com HAH GROUP: Delia Sues Over Failure to Protect Highly Sensitive Data ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Delia, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HAH GROUP HOLDING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a HELP AT HOME, Case No. 1:24-cv-07757 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 27, 2024), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and private health information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") about its current and former patients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). On August 16, 2024, Help at Home also sent out data breach letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident ("Breach Notice"). Based on the Breach Notice sent to Plaintiff and "Class Members," unusual activity was detected on its vendor's computer systems. In response, Defendant's vendor launched an investigation. Help at Home's investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain files that contained sensitive patient information, and that such access took place on March 21, 2024 (the "Data Breach"). Yet, Help at Home waited approximately five months to notify the public that they were at risk. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea for five months that their Private Information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Help at Home's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of information that were accessed, and that such information was subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current patient of the Help at Home. Help at Home is a Chicago-based home care services company that serves tens of thousands of patients in 12 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cassandra Miller, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: cmiller@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com HAWX LLC: Hall Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawx, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jeremy A. Hall, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hawx, LLC doing business as: Hawx Pest Control LLC, John Does 1-10, Case No. 5:24-cv-01822-JGB-RAO (C.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Hawx Pest Control -- https://hawxpestcontrol.com/ -- serves customers in several states across the country, and offer specialized, local knowledge of the pests that are impacting life.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (331) 307-7646 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Kent Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Stephen Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, a foreign profit corporation; HCL AMERICA INC., a foreign limited liability company; HCL AMERICA SOLUTIONS INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 2024-013421-CA-01 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Aug. 23, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01332. On July 23, 2024, Plaintiff Stephen Kent ("Plaintiff") initiated a civil action in King County Superior Court by filing a copy of the Summons and Complaint with that Court. The Complaint set forth one cause of action against Defendants, premised on Defendants' alleged use of job postings that do not include the wage scales or salary ranges to be offered to hired applicants. The Complaint is styled as a class action and asserts allegations on behalf of a putative class under Washington Civil Rule 23.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 Fax: (206) 441-9711 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Breanne Martell, Esq. Derek A. Bishop, Esq. Daniel Rhim, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Fax: 206.447.6965 Email: bsmartell@littler.com debishop@littler.com drhim@littler.com HESS CORP: Court Grants Motion to Strike a Subclass of Plaintiffs ----------------------------------------------------------------- A subclass of plaintiffs in an oil and gas royalty fees dispute in North Dakota was eliminated from a class action against New York-based Hess Corp. The Aug. 13 order from U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland of the Western District of North Dakota granted a Hess motion to strike a group of plaintiffs that alleged Hess made late royalty payments without paying 18% interest on the late payments. Two other subclasses in the class action were not considered -- the plaintiffs’ complaints also address those who contest certain royalty deductions by Hess as excessive and unreasonable, and those who claim breaches of contractual obligations on certain mineral rights leases. The consolidated plaintiffs include Ronald Penman and others similarly situations, Adelante Oil & Gas LLC of Durango, Colorado, and Sandy River Energy LLC. The legal team for plaintiffs includes George Barton and Stacy Burrows of Barton and Burrows in Mission, Kansas, and Joshua A. Swanson and Robert B. Stock of Vogel Law Firm in Fargo, North Dakota. They did not respond to requests for comment. Hess is represented by Daniel Donovan, Ragan Naresh, Ross Powell and Gabi Durling of Kirkland & Ellis, and by Paul Forster and Zachary Eiken of Crowley Fleck. Hess argued that because the late-payment class definition did not account for the federal statute’s safe-harbor provisions, some subclass members lacked standing. Hess also argued the subclass could not satisfy the predominance and typicality requirements. Judge Hovland noted that plaintiffs opposed the motion on procedure and substance, arguing federal rules of civil procedure bar the motion because Hess has already moved to dismiss. Plaintiffs also argued the subclass should not be struck during pleadings because discovery would produce information supporting certification. Hovland first determined the court could consider the motion at this stage. He then determined certain of the subclass members did lack standing. “The class definition fails to account for the safe harbor provisions … which provide that penalty interest does not accrue under certain circumstances,” such as when mineral owners elect to take their share of production in kind; a dispute of title that affects distribution of royalty payments; or where a mineral owner cannot be located by the operator, Hovland said. “By including ‘all persons or entities’ to whom Hess has hot remitted royalties … the class definition necessarily includes class members whose payment were lawfully suspended due to safe harbor provisions,” the court order states. Responding to plaintiffs’ argument that the court should wait until after discovery to decide, Hovland said no amount of discovery will cure a class defined to include members without standing. [GN] HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH GIGUERE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HOMEWORKS ENERGY, INC., MARTIJN FLEUREN, individually and MAX VEGGEBERG, individually, Case No. 3:21-cv-30015-MGM (D. Mass.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending deadline to oppose class certification: The Defendants request that the deadline for the Defendants to Oppose Class Certification be extended up to and including Aug. 20, 2024. The Defendants received the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on July 22, 2024. The Parties have been discussing the definition of the class in the hopes of narrowing any potential disputes. The Plaintiff's counsel has assented to the brief extension requested by Defendants to oppose the pending motion for class certification, so that the Parties may continue to collaboratively work together on narrowing the scope of any potential disputes. The Defendants propose extending the deadlines for filing as follows: Event Current Date Proposed Date Oppositions to Motion for Class Aug. 21, 2024 Aug. 30, 2024 Certification filed by: Reply Brief filed by: Sept. 4, 2024 Sept. 13, 2024 HomeWorks Energy specializes in energy assessment and consulting. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EXKBm4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 785-1400 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Douglas J. Hoffman, Esq. Keerthi Sugumaran, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 367-0025 E-mail: Douglas.Hoffman@jacksonlewis.com Keerthi.Sugumaran@jacksonlewis.com INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES: Murras Labor Suit Removed to D. Mass. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MIKE MURRAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 2485CV000972, was removed from the Worcester County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on August 26, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-12197 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay appropriate wages. Insituform Technologies, LLC is a provider of cured-in place pipe (CIPP) and other technologies and services for the rehabilitation of pipeline systems based in Chesterfield, Missouri. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Stephen T. Paterniti, Esq. Jeanette M. Piaget Figueroa, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 367-0025 Facsimile: (617) 367-2155 Email: stephen.paterniti@jacksonlewis.com jeanette.piagetfigueroa@jacksonlewis.com INTELEMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS: Tirado Balks at Unsolicited Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE TIRADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTELEMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00758 (E.D. Tex., August 21, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. This case arises from Defendant's transmission of prerecorded messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and others, without regard to consumers' consent. To gain an advantage over its competitors and increase its revenue, the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing, with no regard for consumers' privacy rights, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Intelemedia Communications, Inc. is a telecommunications service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com JERICO PICTURES: Wyche Alleges Inadequate Data Security Measures ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONYO WYCHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JERICO PICTURES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC DATA, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-61534 (S.D. Fla., August 21, 2024) arises out of Defendant’s failures to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures allowed the April 2024 targeted cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network that, upon information and belief, contained personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other individuals, including, name, addresses, and Social Security numbers. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their medical and financial accounts to guard against identity theft. As a result of Defendant's unreasonable and inadequate data security practices, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages, says the suit. Jerico Pictures, Inc. is a background check company that allows its customers to search billions of records with instant results.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL Telephone: scott@edelsberglaw.com KK NUTRITION: Zimmerman Probes Claims Over Gummies' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- Meredith Clark, writing for Independent, reports that Kourtney Kardashian Barker's supplement brand Lemme may soon be facing allegations of deceptive advertising. Zimmerman Reed, a class action litigation firm, has launched an investigation into the reality TV star's popular line of gummies and supplements over claims that Lemme "violated consumers' rights by misleadingly and deceptively marketing its products." The law firm is specifically investigating the brand's Lemme Purr Gummies, which purports to boost vaginal health and "support vaginal odor"; Lemme Curb Capsules, advertised to support healthy blood sugar; Lemme Debloat Gummies, which claims to relieve bloating symptoms; and Lemme Matcha Gummies, advertised to support "cellular energy and energy metabolism." Zimmerman Reed asks Lemme customers if they "expected the products to work as advertised" upon purchasing Lemme Purr Gummies, Lemme Curb Capsules, Lemme Debloat Gummies, or Lemme Matcha Gummies. "If you purchased a Lemme product, you may be entitled to compensation," the free case review form reads. Kardashian Barker's wellness brand has previously raised eyebrows from health experts and medical professionals. The Kardashians star launched Lemme in September 2022 with a line of vegan, gluten-free, and non-GMO gummy supplements. She then became the subject of controversy after introducing Lemme Purr, the brand's vaginal probiotic gummies, in February 2023. According to the Lemme website, Lemme Purr contains "clinically-studied SNZ 1969 probiotics" that specifically "target vaginal microbiome health and pH levels to support freshness and odor." The gummies are also made with "Vitamin C for antioxidant and pro-collagen benefits and real pineapple extract." While Lemme Purr sold out in its first week, that didn't stop some customers and gynecologists from feeling a little skeptical. Dr Melanie Bone -- an OBGYN and member of Daye's medical board, a gynecological health research and development company -- previously told The Independent that since vaginas are self-cleaning, products that play on false insecurities about women's health should be treated with caution. "Brands should not try to advance artificial insecurities forced upon women and AFAB [assigned female at birth] individuals," she said. Although Lemme Purr contains probiotics, which have been proven to support the health of your vaginal microbiome (microorganisms that exist in the vagina), the ingredients used in Kardashian Barker's product such as pineapple extract "are less credible." "There is no validated clinical data that suggests you can, or should, alter the way your vagina tastes," she confirmed. The case review form also cited a 2023 report from Women's Health Magazine. The outlet found that Kardashian Barker's Lemme Debloat gummies contain three grams of sugar per serving, which can contribute to bloating. [GN] MASSAGE ENVY: Ahdoot Wolfson Investigates Auto-Renewal Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ahdoot Wolfson is investigating a potential class action against massage and skin care franchise network + based upon reports that it continues to charge monthly membership fees to customers of Massage Envy franchises that have been closed. Reports indicate that consumers who were members at closed Massage Envy franchises will continue to receive electronic charges to their payment cards or bank accounts well after the Massage Envy location at which they were a member has permanently closed. Massage Envy's reported practice of continuing to charge membership fees electronically and without customer authorization after its locations close may violate state and federal consumer protection laws as well as laws prohibiting auto-renewal practices. If you were a customer of a Massage Envy location that continued to be charged for membership fees after the location closed, we would like to hear from you. [GN] MERIDIAN SERVICES: Bishop Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Terrance Bishop, individually and for others similarly situated v. MERIDIAN SERVICES GROUP, LLC f/k/a WORK MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00843-JHR-DLM (D.N.M., Aug. 26, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defedant for violations of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA). The Plaintiff and the New Mexico Straight Time Employees regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and the New Mexico Straight Time Employees overtime. Instead of paying overtime as required by the NMMWA, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff and the New Mexico Straight Time Employees as exempt from overtime and paid them the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours in a workweek (or "straight time for overtime"). the Defendant never paid the Plaintiff or the New Mexico Straight Time Employees on a "salary basis." In addition to the Plaintiff and the New Mexico Straight Time Employees' hourly pay, the Defendant uniformly paid these employees a per diem for each day they worked. But the Defendant never included these per diems in calculating the Plaintiff and the New Mexico Straight Time Employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. Thus, the Defendant violated the NMMWA by failing to pay the Plaintiff and the New Mexico Straight Time Employees overtime at rates not less than 1.5 times their regular rates of pay – based on all remuneration received--for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Meridian as a Construction Manager from June 1, 2022 to June 30, 2022. Meridian is a recruitment and staffing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com MERRICK GARLAND: Plaintiffs Directed Not to File Additional Bids ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLADES et al., v. GARLAND, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00279 (D.D.C., Filed Feb. 3, 2022), the Hon. Judge Amy Berman Jackson entered an order on motion to expedite set/reset deadlines: -- Any further briefing on plaintiffs' motions for expedition, summary judgment, class certification, leave to amend, and preliminary injunctive relief will be held in abeyance pending the Court's ruling on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. -- The Plaintiffs are further cautioned that they do not need to file any additional motions asking for relief that has already been requested. The nature of suit states Administrative Procedure Act / Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.[CC] METHODE ELECTRONICS: Faces Salem Suit Over 80% Drop of Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARIE SALEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METHODE ELECTRONICS, INC., DONALD W. DUDA, and RONALD L.G. TSOUMAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07696 (N.D. Ill., August 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Methode's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Methode common stock at artificially inflated prices between June 23, 2022 and March 6, 2024. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse facts about the company's transition into new business opportunities. The Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the company's transition away from its lucrative and dependable General Motors center console business and into a more diversified mix of product lines with a focus on higher margin, more specialized components had been plagued with operational, logistical, and personnel challenges that were negatively impacting the company's business and revenue growth. When the truth emerged, the price of Methode common stock dropped from $21.04 per share when the market closed on March 6, 2024, to $14.49 per share when the market closed on March 7, 2024, a 31 percent decline, on abnormally high volume. By mid-June 2024, the price of Methode stock had fallen to less than $10 per share, more than 80 percent below its Class Period high. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's common stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant economic losses and damages. Methode Electronics, Inc. is a producer of mechatronic products, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 674-4674 Facsimile: (312) 674-4676 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Michael I. Fistel, Jr. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (470) 632-6000 Facsimile: (770) 200-3101 Email: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com MFP AGENCY: Parties in Suess Suit Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Suess v. MFP Agency, LLC dba Total Health, Case No. 6:24-cv-01504 (M.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for: (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, Plaintiff and Defendant; (2) discovery -- class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC] MODERNA INC: Wentz Sues Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------ MASON WENTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MODERNA, INC.; STEPHANE BANCEL; JAMES M. MOCK; and STEPHEN HOGE, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12058 (D. Mass., Aug. 9, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Moderna securities between January 18, 2023 and June 25, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) mRNA-1345 was less effective than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, mRNA-1345's clinical and/or commercial prospects were overstated; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Moderna's stock price fell $15.15 per share, or 11.01 percent, to close at $122.45 per share on June 26, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Moderna, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The Company focuses on the discovery and development of messenger RNA therapeutics and vaccines. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily C. Finestone, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 697-6484 Fax: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com MONTE NIDO: Choi Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information ----------------------------------------------------------- Gabrielle Choi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MONTE NIDO HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-23252-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 26, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its patients. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. Monte Nido collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) patients at Defendant. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, addresses, email addresses, and dates of birth ("personally identifiable information" or "PII") and medical information, which is protected health information ("PHI", and collectively with PII, "Private Information") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value to identity thieves. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its patients' Private Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients at Defendant. The Defendant is a healthcare provider that specializes in treating eating disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com cardoso@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com MORGANE LE FAY: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. MORGANE LE FAY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05964 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Mixhers provides to their non-disabled customers through http//:www.Morganelefay.com (hereinafter "Morganelefay.com" or "the website"). The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Morganelefay.com, is not equally accessible to blind consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Sportiqe's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using her computer. Morgane Le Fay provides to the public a website known as Morganelefay.com which provides consumers with access to a wide range of luxury fashion products and accessories including dresses, tops, skirts, jackets, and accessories which can be purchased on the Website with the click of a mouse, among other features.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com MPW INDUSTRIAL: Warren Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Cordell Warren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MPW Industrial Services, Inc., Case No. 2024 CH 06504 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 22, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-07607. The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Illinois Genetic Privacy Act ("GIPA"), by "requiring its prospective employees to undergo a physical examination" that "asked its prospective employees questions about the manifestation of diseases in their family members," and that Defendant "violated GIPA by soliciting and obtaining Plaintiff's and the Class's genetic information as a precondition of employment or preemployment application."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nadine C. Abrahams, Esq. Gabriela G. Kawiecki (Ellie), Esq. Jackson Lewis P.C. 150 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 787-4949 Email: Nadine.Abrahams@jacksonlewis.com Ellie.Kawiecki@jacksonlewis.com MULTIPLAN INC: AOC Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Advanced Orthopedic Center, Inc., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated v. MULTIPLAN, INC., a New York corporation, AETNA, INC., a Delaware corporation, THE CIGNA GROUP, a Delaware corporation, and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-04656 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 21, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3: 1:24-cv-07177 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. MultiPlan, Inc. -- https://www.multiplan.us/ -- provides healthcare cost management solutions. The Company specializes in providing claim cost management solutions for controlling the financial risks associated with medical bills.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Christopher Carmody, Esq. Shawn J. Rabin, Esq. Thomas K. Boardman, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 336-8330 Fax: (212) 336-8340 Email: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com srabin@susmangodfrey.com tboardman@susmangodfrey.com - and - Halley W. Josephs, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 789-3100 Fax: (310) 789-3150 Email: hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com - and - Natasha J. Fernandez-Silber, Esq. Julian Zhu, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: nfernandezsilber@edelson.com jzhu@edelson.com - and - Yaman Salahi, Esq. EDELSON PC 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: ysalahi@edelson.com MULTIPLAN INC: Tarzana Recovery Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tarzana Recovery Center, on behalf of itself and a proposed Class of SUD treatment providers v. MultiPlan, Inc., Aetna, Inc., The Cigna Group, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated and Elevance Health, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04404 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 21, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-07169 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. MultiPlan, Inc. -- https://www.multiplan.us/ -- provides healthcare cost management solutions. The Company specializes in providing claim cost management solutions for controlling the financial risks associated with medical bills.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M Lavin ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Ste. 350s Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 677-4030 Email: matt.lavin@agg.com - and - Hunter Jay Shkolnik NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 1302 Avenida Ponce de Leon Santurce, PR 00907 Phone: (787) 493-5088 Fax: (646) 843-7619 Email: Hunter@nsprlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Lawrence E. Buterman LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 906-1200 Email: lawrence.buterman@lw.com - and - Sadik Harry Huseny LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 391-0600 Email: sadik.huseny@lw.com - and - Joshua B. Simon Chelsea Cosillos Dmitriy Tishyevich Warren Haskel MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017-3852 Phone: (212) 547-5630 Email: jsimon@mwe.com ccosillos@mwe.com dtishyevich@mwe.com whaskel@mwe.com - and - E. Desmond Hogan HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 13th Street, Nw Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 637-5493 Email: desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com - and - Matthew Alan Ducharme HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP (NYC) 390 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 918-3000 Email: matthew.ducharme@hoganlovells.com MULTIPLAN INC: Vanity Wellness Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Vanity Wellness Center Incorporated, on behalf of itself and a proposed Class of SUD treatment providers v. MultiPlan, Inc., Aetna, Inc., The Cigna Group, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated and Elevance Health, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04408 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 21, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-07174 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. MultiPlan, Inc. -- https://www.multiplan.us/ -- provides healthcare cost management solutions. The Company specializes in providing claim cost management solutions for controlling the financial risks associated with medical bills.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M Lavin ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Ste. 350s Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 677-4030 Email: matt.lavin@agg.com - and - Hunter Jay Shkolnik NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 1302 Avenida Ponce de Leon Santurce, PR 00907 Phone: (787) 493-5088 Fax: (646) 843-7619 Email: Hunter@nsprlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Lawrence E. Buterman LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 906-1200 Email: lawrence.buterman@lw.com - and - Sadik Harry Huseny LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 391-0600 Email: sadik.huseny@lw.com - and - Joshua B. Simon Chelsea Cosillos Dmitriy Tishyevich Warren Haskel MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017-3852 Phone: (212) 547-5630 Email: jsimon@mwe.com ccosillos@mwe.com dtishyevich@mwe.com whaskel@mwe.com - and - E. Desmond Hogan HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 13th Street, Nw Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 637-5493 Email: desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com - and - Matthew Alan Ducharme HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP (NYC) 390 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 918-3000 Email: matthew.ducharme@hoganlovells.com NANO NUCLEAR: Yang Sues Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------ YVETTE YANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NANO NUCLEAR ENERGY INC.; JAY YU; and JAMES WALKER, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06057 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2024) is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, NNE securities during the period from May 8, 2024 through July 18, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), who were damaged thereby (the "Class"), alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material facts, including that: a) NNE's purported progress toward regulatory approval for the design of its planned micro reactors and fuel fabrication plant was nonexistent; b) NNE's timelines for commercialization were wildly optimistic, at best, and most likely impossible; c) the foregoing issues were likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's projected revenues and growth; d) as a result, the Company's financial position and/or prospects were overstated; and e) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. NNE's stock dropped 7 percent, to $11.81 on July 31, 2024 from a previous days close of $12.75. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. operates as a nuclear energy company. The Company develops portable clean energy solutions utilizing proprietary reactor designs, intellectual property, and research methods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Sarah Delaney, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 fax Email: jeff@blockleviton.com sarah@blockleviton.com NASSAU, NJ: Faces Disability Class Action Suit Over Mask Ban ------------------------------------------------------------ Julia Metraux of Mother Jones reports that Nassau County, on New York's Long Island, became the first county in the US to ban the public wearing of masks -- with very vague health exemptions -- since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Nassau ban follows a similarly controversial statewide mask ban in North Carolina that took effect in June. Several concerns have been raised about Nassau's mask ban, including that police officers -- not experts in public health or medicine -- are tasked with determining whether an individual is wearing a mask for valid health reasons. But another is that the pandemic is not over, and wearing medical masks while grocery shopping or even at a protest is meant to limit exposure to the disease -- and some residents expect a ban to lead to harassment by local anti-maskers. The county's move has prompted the first class-action lawsuit against a mask ban, filed Thursday, August 22, in federal district court by Disability Rights New York against Nassau County and county executive Bruce Blakeman on behalf of two anonymous residents. "This mask ban poses a direct threat to public health and discriminates against people with disabilities," said Timothy A. Clune, the group's executive director, in a press release. One of the residents, who lives with cerebral palsy and asthma, said they were stopped and questioned by other residents after the ban was passed -- even before it was enacted -- and, according to the complaint, now "fears that they will be arrested. . . because there is no standard for the police to follow to decide if they meet the health exception." The other resident represented in the complaint, who masks due to various immune conditions, the complaint says, is now "terrified to go into public wearing a mask." Both complainants say that masking has enabled them to participate in public life as disabled people during the ongoing pandemic. Disability Rights NY argues in the suit that the ban as written is unconstitutional, and violates both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, both key items of federal civil rights legislation, by denying disabled people access to their own communities. "Local laws that abrogate or curtail rights conferred by federal law are. . . rendered invalid," the complaint reads. Given that Covid can itself disable people, Jason Cohen, a neurologist who lives in Nassau, has major concerns about how the mask ban will play out. "I care for many patients who have brain fog from Covid and many more who are at higher risk of brain damage from Covid," Cohen said. "Anything that discourages masking among those who want to mask is a travesty and public health disaster." Cohen also says that governments "should not force people to disclose their personal medical information to police in order to negotiate their way out of being accused of a crime." Some disabled people nevertheless have concerns about the suit itself. Ngozi, a Black disabled person who lives just over the county border in Queens, is concerned that it will end in "some type of negotiation with the state that results in keeping the law intact," which would maintain the risk of racial profiling. "I do not have faith in the state," Ngozi said. "A lawsuit will not resolve the threat of mask bans anytime soon." Disability Rights New York is requesting a declaratory judgment that Nassau County's mask ban violates federal law, as well as a restraining order. [GN] NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Monroe Class EFTA Suit in S.D. Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navy Federal Credit Union. The case is captioned as Zakiya A. Monroe v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:24-cv-01325-CMH-WBP (E.D. Va., July 31, 2024). The suit alleges violation of the Electronic Fees Transfer Act involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Claude M. Hilton. Navy Federal Credit Union is an American global credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, chartered and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union Administration.[BN] The Plaintiff Monroe on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, is represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 Facsimile: (703) 591-9285 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com NEPENTHES AMERICA: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Pasquale Agnone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nepenthes America, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-05822 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Nepenthes America provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.nepenthesny.com (hereinafter "Nepenthesny.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Nepenthesny.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually- impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Nepenthes America's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Nepenthesny.com provides to the public a wide array of services, price specials and other programs offered by Nepenthes America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 718.705.8706 Fax: 718.705.8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com NOBLE CREDIT: Immigrants Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- A California Superior Court judge has granted preliminary approval of a class-action settlement between Noble Credit Union and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and other immigrants who were denied credit because of their immigration status. MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) represents recipients of DACA and other immigrants who comprise the settlement class. As part of the agreement, approved on August 22, 2024, Noble has agreed to create a settlement fund of $159,000 (excluding administration costs and attorneys' fees) to compensate the class of immigrants affected by the challenged practice. The settlement is one of several MALDEF has reached with financial institutions that deny services to DACA recipients and other immigrants based on their status rather than credit-worthiness. "We are very pleased that the Court granted preliminary approval of this far-reaching settlement," said Luis Lozada, MALDEF staff attorney. "The settlement provides the highest recovery to date, and demonstrates the growing recognition that immigrants have a right to credit. This is our second case in the Central Valley of California. With this settlement, the wider immigrant community will have access to much-needed consumer credit products." MALDEF filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of Noemi Peraza Lopez, a DACA recipient, and a member of California-based Noble Credit Union. Peraza's application for a car loan was initially approved but then rescinded by the credit union because she is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Peraza, 29, of Fresno, applied for a $35,000 auto loan in July 2023. A representative told her the loan was approved. However, on July 19, she was sent a letter by the credit union denying her application because of her status. After Peraza complained, she was sent a second letter explaining that the credit union did "not grant credit to any applicants on the terms and conditions" she requested. The lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno, challenged Noble's policy as a violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Unruh Act prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, citizenship, age, immigration status and other characteristics. "Although various class members were all affected by the same discriminatory situation, it looks like we are headed in the right direction," said Peraza. "If something never seems right it is always best to challenge that policy." Since 2017, MALDEF has filed 15 lawsuits challenging the policies of financial institutions that discriminate against DACA recipients. [GN] NOBLR RECIPROCAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Data Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eversheds Sutherland reports that on August 21, 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a proposed data breach class action complaint filed against Eversheds Sutherland client, Noblr Reciprocal Exchange. The Ninth Circuit found that the three putative class representatives did not have Article III standing because they did not allege an injury in fact that was fairly traceable to Noblr's conduct. The dismissal concludes a three and a half-year long litigation arising from an attack on Noblr's online quote tool. In January 2021, unknown hackers manipulated Noblr's online quote tool in an apparent attempt to obtain consumers' driver's license numbers (DLNs). Three individuals who received breach notifications from Noblr filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of California in 2021 alleging that Noblr failed to implement reasonable security measures, leading to the exposure of their DLNs and other information. The plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence and violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and sought injunctive and declaratory relief under California's Unfair Competition Law. The DPPA claim allows for recovery of up to $2,500 per violation. Noblr filed a combined Rule 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' first complaint in 2021. The district court granted the Rule 12(b)(1) motion for lack of Article III standing, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege an actual or imminent injury fairly traceable to Noblr's conduct. The plaintiffs amended their complaint and the district court granted Noblr's second motion to dismiss on the same grounds as the first motion. The plaintiffs appealed to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appeal to the Ninth Circuit In addition to restating their arguments at the district court level, on appeal the plaintiffs argued that the district court failed to address their argument that the DPPA provides an independent basis for Article III standing. Oral argument was held on February 14, 2024. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint on August 21, 2024. The court made three key holdings. First, it found the plaintiffs did not allege an actual injury or imminent risk of injury. Second, the court held that a purported violation of the DPPA does not confer standing on its own. A key focal point of Noblr's oral argument was that the disclosure of driver's license numbers is not as offensive or objectionable as the conduct contemplated by common law tort claims. The Ninth Circuit agreed, and rejected the plaintiffs' argument that their DPPA claim was analogous to the torts of intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, or public disclosure of private facts. Third, the Ninth Circuit held that even if the plaintiffs had alleged an actual or imminent injury, such injury was not fairly traceable to Noblr's conduct. The plaintiffs have no further opportunity to amend. In that key holding, the Ninth Circuit noted the inherent flaw in many data breach complaints: it is nearly impossible to conclude that a person's data was stolen in a particular attack when data theft has become so commonplace. As a result, the plaintiffs could not trace past or future identity theft to the specific theft of information from Noblr's system. "Taken together, these facts are strong evidence that the attackers already possessed personal information about Au before the Noblr cyberattack and gained additional personal information required to complete the application in cyberattacks unrelated to the incident involving Noblr's quote system. Given that multiple attacks must have occurred, Au alleges no credible basis for why the attack on Noblr's system was the source of the information used in the application for benefits." The plaintiffs have no further opportunity to amend, bringing to an end the three and a half year-long litigation. Noblr was represented in the litigation by Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Frank Nolan, Jim Silliman, and Amy Albanese. [GN] OKLAHOMA PETROLEUM: Settlement Class Gets Certification in Dinsmore ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marvin B. Dinsmore, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Oklahoma Petroleum Allies, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00350-GLJ (E.D. Okla), the Hon. Judge Gerald Jackson entered an order certifying settlement class defined as follows: "All non-excluded persons or entities who, during the Claim Period: (1) received Late Payments from Defendant for oil-and- gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells; or whose proceeds were sent as unclaimed property to a government entity by Defendant; and (2) who have not already been paid statutory interest on the Late Payments." A "Late Payment" for purposes of this class definition means payment of proceeds from the sale of oil or gas production from an oil-and-gas well after the statutory periods identified in Okla. Stat. tit. 52, section 570.10(B)(1) (i.e., commencing not later than six (6) months after the date of first sale, and thereafter not later than the last day of the second succeeding month after the end of the month within which such production is sold). Late Payments do not include: (a) payments of proceeds to an owner under Okla. Stat. tit. 52, 570.10(B)(3) (minimum pay); or (b) prior period adjustments. Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its parents, affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2). This is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a class of owners, against the Defendant for the alleged failure to pay statutory interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the Production Revenue Standards Act (the "PRSA") for oil-and-gas production proceeds from oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. On Aug. 7, 2024, the Parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement finalizing the terms of the Settlement. Oklahoma Petroleum is an oil & energy midstream company. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 21, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q0HToP at no extra charge.[CC] OLD SOUTHWEST HEALTH: Johnson Files Suit in W.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Old Southwest Health and Rehabilitation, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kraeema Johnson, Ketitia Stanley, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Old Southwest Health and Rehabilitation, LLC; Seven Hills Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; Roanoke Rehab & Healthcare Center LLC doing business as: Star City Rehabilitation and Nursing; River Edge Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; Wythe VA OPCO LLC doing business as: Mountain Laurel Rehabilitation and Nursing; Greene Acres Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; Deer Meadows Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; Blue Ridge Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; Bay Pointe Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; Birchwood Park Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; Cypress Point Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; Nassawadox Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; Norview Heights Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; Northern Cardinal Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; Nans Pointe Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; Old Dominion Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; Thalia Gardens Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC; VA SNF Consulting LLC doing business as: Eastern Healthcare Group Roanoke Opco Holdco LLC; VA SNF Master Consulting LLC; doing business as: Eastern Healthcare Group; Case No. 7:24-cv-00574-MFU-CKM (W.D. Va., Aug. 27, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for the Equal Pay Act. Old Southwest Health and Rehabilitation in Roanoke, Virgnia -- https://oldsouthwesthealth.com/ -- has a short-term rehabilitation rating of Below Average and a long-term care rating of Below Average.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Earl Collins, Esq. Mia Yugo, Esq. YUGO COLLINS, PLLC 25 Franklin Rd. SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Phone: (910) 546-3800 Email: chris@yugocollins.com mia@yugocollins.com OTS SOLUTIONS: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against OTS Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Cesar Martinez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OTS Solutions, LLC, Ramiro Montanez, Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0010467 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." OTS -- https://otssolutions.com/ -- is a leading Information Technology Consulting, Services & Solutions providers headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd., Ste. 300 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com OUTDOOR DREAM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Consumer Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------- Tiffany Salameh of News4JAX reports that a Jacksonville councilman has filed a class action lawsuit against a local outdoor kitchen and hot tub company. The News4JAX I-TEAM received several complaints from customers earlier this year accusing Premier Outdoor USA of bad business practices for faulty or missing equipment and incomplete kitchens. The State Attorney's Office told News4JAX it has received 39 complaints against the business. The company is now operating under a different business name -- the Outdoor Dream Company -- at the same location on Phillips Highway. Jacksonville Councilman Rory Diamond is leading the litigation efforts for wronged consumers. "This is a Jacksonville company, so obviously, you know, we don't like that out here," Diamond said. "In my opinion, they've absolutely defrauded consumers, and it's our job just to make them whole again." Premier Outdoor USA and the owner Shaun Jackrel are being sued for violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Business Practices Act. The state law prohibits practices of false advertising, bait-and-switch tactics, warranty misrepresentation, and other misleading actions. Diamond said his client was a victim of all of the above. Receipts show she paid nearly $40,000 for a hot tub that never worked. "She needed a medical swim spa for her own health. She ordered, paid $40,000 and it never worked properly. Could never get fixed. They refused to replace it," Diamond said. "That's just wild. You just don't treat people like that. So, the purpose of this lawsuit is to make these consumers whole, to make sure that they get their swim spas fixed, or they get their money back." The lawsuit acknowledges that there are multiple serious complaints against the business. The News4JAX I-TEAM investigation from April is also mentioned in the lawsuit. That's when we met John Sierp who paid $18,000 for an outdoor kitchen that was never completed. "Something needs to be done about Premier Outdoor on a grand scale because they just wronged so many people," Sierp said in reaction to the class action lawsuit. "I'm happy that things are going forward against this man and against this company." Although the company has changed its name to Outdoor Dream Company, it also has poor online reviews. Diamond filed the lawsuit on Monday, August 19, and since then, he said he's heard from dozens more customers. "So, think about this. It's a nationwide company, two dozen people just in the Jacksonville area," Diamond said. Diamond said the next step is to get the class action lawsuit certified. Once that happens, other customers of Premier Outdoor USA and Jackrel, who's named individually in the lawsuit, will be able to file a claim. The News4JAX I-TEAM has contacted Outdoor Dream Company for comment on this story but has yet to hear back. If you'd like to have your name added to the class action lawsuit, contact the Douglas Law Firm by calling 800-705-5457 or emailing Rory@DHClawyers.com. [GN] PET MARKET: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PET MARKET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05871 (E.D.N.Y., August 22, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.petmarketnyc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on May 30, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the dog ball (Chuckit! Dog Toy Max Glow Bal), that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Pet Market, Inc. owns the website that offers pet food and supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Tampons Contains Toxic Lead, Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- LAURA WILLIS-ALBRIGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01416-RSH-MSB (S. Cal., Aug. 9, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's "Tampax Pearl" Tampons (the "Tampons" or "Products") contain lead which is a known health hazard that poses a health threat. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not aware that the Tampons contained lead. After reading the label, Plaintiff purchased the Tampons on the assumption that the labeling was accurate, and that the Tampons did not contain known harmful substances like lead. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Tampons had she known the Tampons contain lead, a substance which is known to be hazardous to human health. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered in fact when she spent money to purchase the Tampons she would not have purchased absent Defendant's misconduct, says the suit. The Procter & Gamble Company manufactures and markets consumer products. The Company provides products in the laundry and cleaning, paper, beauty care, food and beverage, and health care segments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Appeals Remand Order in Turner Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO. is taking an appeal from a court order granting plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Ronzell Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Co., Defendant, Case No. 2-24-cv-00939, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is brought against the Defendant for insurance contract violations. On Mar. 28, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On Apr. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on May 7, 2024. On Aug. 14, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand through an Order entered by Judge John F. Murphy. The case was remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County for further proceedings. The Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied as moot. The appellate case is captioned Ronzell Turner v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Co., Case No. 24-8031, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on August 26, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent RONZELL TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Scott B. Cooper, Esq. SCHMIDT KRAMER 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 232-6300 - and – John P. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & ASSOCIATES 429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 261-4663 - and – James C. Haggerty, Esq. HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH 1801 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 350-6633 - and – Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS 200 Barr Harbor Drive Four Tower Bridge, Suite 400 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 Defendant-Petitioner PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO. is represented by: Alexander Fuchs, Esq. Kymberly Kochis, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND 1114 Avenue of the Americas The Grace Building, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 389-5082 (212) 389-5068 RAFAEL MOVING: Faces Tejada-Pena Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- FREDDY ANDERSON TEJADA-PENA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAFAEL MOVING d/b/a RAMIREZ MOVING EQUIPMENT and RAFAEL RAMIREZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06352 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2024) is an action for Defendants' systemic violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' violations of: i) overtime provisions of the FLSA; ii) the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the NYLL; iii) the requirement that employers furnish employees with a written statement at the time of hiring, containing specific categories of information under the NYLL; iv) the requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements on each payday containing specific categories of accurate information under the NYLL; (v) disability discrimination in violation of the NYSHRL; (vi) disability discrimination in violation of the NYCHRL; and vii) any other cause(s) of action that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein. The Plaintiff began working with Defendants in or around 2005 until Defendants unlawfully terminated him in or about September 2023. The Plaintiff's responsibilities included arriving to the Bronx warehouse in the morning, loading trucks with refrigerators and other equipment, assisting drivers with making deliveries in and around New York City, and then returning to the warehouse at the end of the day. Rafael Moving, d/b/a Ramirez Moving Equipment, engages in the transportation and moving industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq. Jennifer Calamia, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 116 Jackson Avenue Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone: (516) 280-3008 E-mail: cg@belllg.com jcalamia@belllg.com RINGSIDE COLLECTIBLES: Karim Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ringside Collectibles, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06349 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2024) is a civil rights action against Ringside Collectibles for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.ringsidecollectibles.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on Ringsidecollectibles.com. Firstly, she tried to purchase wrestling action figures on March 11, 2024, and then she tried again on March 12, 2024. All these times she was unable to complete the purchase independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. These access barriers have caused Ringsidecollectibles.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, hidden elements on the web page, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Ringside Collectibles' policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Ringside Collectibles, Inc. owns and operates the website that offers wrestling figures and related accessories, including action figures of popular wrestlers, display stands, protective cases, ring playsets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: glevyfirm@gmail.com ROMAN HEALTH: Faces Torres TCPA Class Suit in S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roman Health Ventures Inc. The case is captioned as Jessica Torres, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. Roman Health Ventures Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-61377-AHS (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2024). The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal. The Plaintiff is represented by:’ Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Bezalel Adin Stern, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (301) 922-5039 E-mail: BStern@manatt.com SAMUEL SON: Faces Hargis Class Action Lawsuit in S.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samuel Son & Co (USA) Inc. The case is captioned as Hargis v. Samuel Son & Co (USA) Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-03805-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, July 31, 2024). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act demanding $9.9M in damages., The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison. Samuel, Son & Co. is a Canadian multinational company specializing in metal processing, distribution, and industrial products.[BN] The Plaintiff Jamie Hargis on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, are represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan Thomas Akers COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com SCOTTSDALE UNIFIED: Parsons Alleges Retaliation, Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Tierra Parsons, Montriece Baker Murray, Jhamal Brown, Tyrone Washington, Craig Rinaldi, and Dave Mencl, on behalf of their minor children, FP, KM, JB, TW, RR, and WM, Plaintiffs v. Scottsdale Unified School District, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02157-MTL (D. Ariz., August 22, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs seeking redress for the retaliatory and discriminatory actions taken against them by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs are parents of minor aged Students who are former students at Saguaro High School and are now enrolled at various schools outside the Scottsdale Unified School District. The students allegedly experienced racial discrimination, including the use of racial slurs, bullying, and harassment, during their time at the school. As a result of the inaction, the Plaintiffs transferred to other schools to escape the hostile educational environment caused by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to prevent the Defendant's retaliatory conduct as it relates to the students' eligibility proceedings with the Arizona Interscholastic Association, declaratory relief to establish that the Defendant's actions violated the Plaintiffs' rights under federal civil rights laws, and compensatory and punitive damages for the harm suffered as a result of the Defendant's unlawful actions. Scottsdale Unified School District is a public school district organized under the laws of the State of Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric P. O'Connor, Esq. O'CONNOR & HURT, PLLC P.O. Box 15087 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (602) 910-5223 E-mail: eric@oconnorhurt.com SFTD LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cantwell Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SFTD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-05875 (E.D.N.Y., August 22, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.storeforthedogs.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on May 30, 2024 to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the dog toy (Snugarooz Floos N' Fun Ball and Rope Dog Toy), that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. SFTD, LLC owns and operates the website that offers tools, toys, and treats designed to improve dog training and overall well-being.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: NFT Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward -------------------------------------------------------- Matt Yoder, writing for Awful Announcing, reports that the fall of "non fungible tokens" was as fast as its rise. But for a brief time period, it seemed like everyone was selling these digital . . . things. . . for huge prices. Various celebrities, athletes, and sports teams got involved in the craze, which is now leading to some serious headaches. And that includes Hall of Fame NBA star and current TNT analyst Shaquille O'Neal. O'Neal has already been at the center of crypto-related controversy before as last year he tried to avoid being served in a lawsuit related to the failed FTX. The hijinx of O'Neal being followed around the country avoiding his legal papers sounded like a modern day Smoky and the Bandit. And now Shaq is in court related to his promotion of the NFT Astrals project that he was involved in. And this one is moving ahead after a judge ruled that O'Neal would have to face the accusations about him pumping up the tokens and then seeing the market collapse. Via CoinDesk: A U.S. court has granted one part and dismissed another part of a class action lawsuit against legendary basketball player Shaquille O'Neal for his role in the NFT project Astrals, according to court documents filed on Friday, August 20. Astrals was a project involving a collection of 10,000 non-fungible tokens (NFTs) 3D avatars and a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) for "incubating innovative projects." Astral NFTs could be used as virtual avatars and the Galaxy token was the governance token of the DAO. The case alleged that O'Neal acted as the face of Astrals urging investors to "[h]op on the wave before its too late." Even when cryptocurrency exchange FTX collapsed in November 2022, O'Neal sent out a graphics interchange format (GIF) on the community message board Discord, from The Wolf of Wall Street that read, "I'm not F***ing Leaving," the court document said. The lawsuit alleged that O'Neal fled the project after that and "the value of Astrals financial products plummeted." O'Neal was not found by the court to be a "control person" of the enterprise. However, he will have to stand up to being a "seller" of the NFTs for actively encouraging people to buy into them. You have to feel sorry for anyone that got caught up in a wave of hysteria that amounted to people paying upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars for goofy smoking monkey pictures that anyone could screenshot and put as their screen saver, or whatever these astrals were. While this lawsuit may be something a lot of folks will scoff at, it could have serious implications for the NFT and crypto markets. If Shaquille O'Neal is found liable in any way for promoting NFTs that are found to be unregulated securities, he may not be the last celebrity figure to find themselves in legal drama that extends well beyond the time that the hype train flew off the tracks. [GN] SPRINKLR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Sprinklr, Inc. (NYSE: CXM) securities between March 29, 2023 and June 5, 2024. Sprinklr is a software company that provides AI-based "Customer Experience Management" platforms for its client's customer-facing teams. Its products help customers provide customer service across various platforms and in different capacities. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Sprinklr, Inc. (CXM) Misled Investors Regarding its Difficulties Scaling the CCaaS Market According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the difficulties in the implementation of scaling in the Contact Center as a Service ("CCaaS") market and the resulting growth slowdown on their existing "go-to-market" initiatives associated with Sprinklr's core suite of products, which collectively caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Sprinklr's securities at artificially inflated prices. On December 6, 2023, during Sprinklr's earnings call following a same day press release announcing its strong third quarter earnings, defendants announced a sequential decrease in the total number of customers spending more than $1 million, attributing it to macroeconomic conditions. Additionally, Sprinklr reduced its estimated growth for the fourth quarter and fiscal year 2025 (ending January 31, 2025) from consensus expectations of 16% growth down to only 10%. On this news, the price of Sprinklr's stock fell more than 33% to close at $11.11 on December 7, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that defendants continued to mislead investors by creating the false impression of anticipate growth. However, on June 5, 2024, Sprinklr announced significantly reduced growth expectations, this time cutting fiscal year 2025 projections another three percent, down to a mere 7% annual growth, again attributing the losses to reduced customer retention in Sprinklr's core business and macro headwinds. On this news, Sprinklr's common stock declined from $10.84 per share on June 5, 2024, to $9.20 per share on June 6, 2024, a decline of more than 15%. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Sprinklr, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court by October 8, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] SSR MINING: Court Rules on Carriage of Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernise Carolino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario recently granted carriage of a proposed securities class action relating to a landslide at a mine in Turkey to Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP (SSS) over Berger Montague (Canada) PC (BMC). Last Feb. 13, a landslide occurred at SSR Mining, Inc.'s Copler Mine in Erzincan, Turkey. The incident caused nine fatalities, many injuries, and significant environmental damage. The accident prompted the two law firms to bring proposed class proceedings against SSR. The claims alleged that SSR made material misrepresentations in its public disclosures about the mine's safety and management. The claims also said that accurate reports could have avoided or mitigated the disaster, would have shown SSR's increased risk of loss, and would have led to trading of SSR's securities at a much lower price. A carriage dispute over which firm would be class counsel arose under s. 13.1 of Ontario's Class Proceedings Act, 1992. The decision hinged on four factors: -- the funding of each action -- the likelihood of success -- the experience of the lawyers involved -- the stage of development of each action SSS presented a third-party funding agreement covering the expenses of the action and indemnifying the representative plaintiff for any adverse cost awards. BMC, on the other hand, planned to self-fund the action and cited its successful track record of financing its own clients without external assistance. SSS awarded carriage In Liang v. SSR Mining, Inc., 2024 ONSC 4432, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice stayed BMC's proposed class proceeding and let SSS proceed with its litigation on behalf of any affected investors. The proposed class action of SSS showed a more advanced stage of development and a greater investment of resources, the court decided. Regarding the first factor, which involved the funding of the proceedings, the court found the approaches of both firms acceptable. Both firms have proven their financial capabilities in past cases, the court noted. On the second and third factors, the court found little difference between the two actions in terms of their likelihood of success and the accomplishments of their lawyers. Both proceedings would focus on alleged misrepresentations under Ontario's securities legislation and would face similar challenges, including certification and obtaining leave to proceed under the legislation. However, the court found a distinction between the two actions in terms of the fourth factor, namely their stage of development. SSS filed its action on Mar. 6, while BMC brought its action on May 1. This head start allowed SSS to progress further in building its case, including by launching a website to keep potential class members informed. The court noted that SSS retained a Turkish law expert who had already begun gathering evidence from Turkish authorities and a mining engineer with experience relevant to the accident at the mine. In contrast, BMC only recently retained its Turkish law experts and was still working on securing a mining expert. [GN] STATE FARM: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Underpaid Claims Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Autobody News reports that a federal judge in Illinois reaffirmed her decision to allow a class action lawsuit against State Farm to move forward, centering on claims that the insurance giant systematically undervalued and underpaid policyholders for totaled vehicles. The decision comes despite State Farm's attempts to have the case dismissed. U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall acknowledged she should have considered the merits of the insurer's arguments but ultimately found the plaintiffs' fraud claims sufficient to proceed. In her ruling Aug. 21, Kendall stated that although she previously mischaracterized State Farm's dismissal motion as procedurally improper, she remains convinced the plaintiffs have sufficiently pled their case. The suit alleges State Farm's use of a typical negotiation adjustment led to the undervaluation of policyholders' vehicles, a practice plaintiffs argue was both deceptive and detrimental to their financial interests. Kendall further clarified that the insurer's challenge, which targeted claims from 26 non-residents based on choice-of-law arguments, is better suited for the class certification stage rather than an outright dismissal. She noted the plaintiffs have provided adequate allegations to support their claim that State Farm's actions could mislead a reasonable consumer into purchasing inadequate coverage. The lawsuit, filed in March 2022, is one of several ongoing federal cases against State Farm that challenge the company's vehicle valuation practices. The plaintiffs contend that if they had been aware of the insurer's typical negotiation adjustments, they either would not have purchased the insurance or would have negotiated for lower premiums. The case continues to proceed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] STMM INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STMM, INC., D/B/A GREAT JONES, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06338 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.greatjonesgoods.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on April 17, 2024 to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the cookware (cast-iron double dutch oven set), that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. STMM, Inc. owns the website that offers a variety of products including cast iron, ceramic, and stainless-steel items designed for everyday cooking needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com STOP & SHOP: Faces Williams Suit Over Misleading Pricing Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY, LLC; and AHOLD DELHAIZE USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12055-JDH (D. Mass., Aug. 9, 2024) is an action pertaining to false, deceptive, and misleading pricing at Stop & Shop stores for a particular product, a family size (8 lb.) bag of Stop & Shop store brand navel oranges (the "Product"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Stop & Shop unfairly and deceptively advertised on its website that the Product would be sold for one price at all Stop & Shop stores while contemporaneously selling the Product at its stores for a higher price. The web prices and the in-store prices varied slightly among the Stop & Shop stores, but generally, the in-store prices were approximately $3 higher than the prices advertised on the website for the Product. Purchasers who saw the website price were led to believe that they could purchase the Product at the same store for the same price, but when they got to the store, they had to pay the higher in-store price for the Product. As a result of Defendants' unfair and deceptive acts or practices, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered ascertainable losses of money or property and have been damaged by Defendants' unlawful acts, says the suit. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC operates a chain of food stores. The Company offers meats, seafood, bakery items, prepared foods, and cheeses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE, PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANN LAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: 513-645-3488 Email: bflick@dannlaw.com SUMIDA AMERICA: Underpays Mold Operators, Gilbert-Thompson Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROY DAVID GILBERT-THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUMIDA AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-12227-JJCG-EAS (E.D. Mich., August 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to include bonuses and/or other remunerations in overtime calculations of employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has been employed as a mold operator at the Defendant's manufacturing plant in Clarkston, Michigan from May 1, 2024, through the present. Sumida America, Inc. is a manufacturer of electro-mechanical automotive devices based in Clarkston, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 Email: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com TELEFLORA LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Picon Says -------------------------------------------------------------- YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Teleflora, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06336 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2024) is a civil rights action against Teleflora for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.teleflora.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Teleflora.com. She tried to purchase a flower bouquet on June 14, 2024, but she was unable to complete the purchase independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. These access barriers have caused Teleflora.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Teleflora's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Teleflora, LLC is a floral wire service company which brokers orders to local florists for delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: glevyfirm@gmail.com TROOMI WIRELESS: Young Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TROOMI WIRELESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06364 (S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://troomi.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on August 6, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Troomi Phone Pro from Defendant and to view the information on the website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the website. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the items to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, which prevented her from doing so, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Troomi Wireless, Inc. is a developer of smartphone technology.[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 UNITED NATURAL: Wallace Sues Over Misleading Mixed Fruit Label -------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON WALLACE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:24-at-01075 (E.D. Cal., August 21, 2024) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly situated consumers who purchased Defendant's Essential Everyday Mixed Fruit claiming that the product is falsely marketed to contain "100% juice," in violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California's False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the product contains the synthetic additive ascorbic acid, unbeknownst to Plaintiff and reasonable consumers. The inclusion of ascorbic acid, a synthetic preservative, renders Defendant's on-label claims that the product is contained in 100% juice false and misleading, says the suit. United Natural Foods, Inc. is a Providence, Rhode Island–based natural and organic food company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, Suite 4667 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com ben@gr-firm.com WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 23 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISA INGRAM, STEPHANIE WILSON, and ROBERT REEVES, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, Case No. 5:20-cv-10288-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith Levy entered an order that: 1. The parties shall complete class certification and fact discovery by Sept. 23, 2024. 2. After the completion of discovery, the Plaintiffs will have until Oct. 23, 2024, to file an amended motion for class certification. 3. The Defendant shall file a motion for summary judgment by Jan. 13, 2025. Defendant's motion may not exceed 25 pages. 4. The Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated opposition to the Defendant's motion and cross-motion for summary judgment by Feb. 12, 2025. 5. The Defendant shall file a consolidated reply in support of its motion and opposition to the Plaintiffs' cross-motion by March 14, 2025. 6. The Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of their cross- motion by April 4, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CTMa5j at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kirby Thomas West, Esq. Christian Lansinger, Esq. Michael B. Soyfer, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 682-9320 E-mail: kwest@ij.org clansinger@ij.org msoyfer@ij.org - and - Barton Morris Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BARTON MORRIS 520 North Main Street Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 541-2600 E-mail: barton@bartonmorris.com The Defendant is represented by: Theodore W. Seitz, Esq. Nasseem S. Ramin, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, MI 48243 Telephone: (313) 568-6800 E-mail: tseitz@dykema.com nramin@dykema.com WHITE FOX: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE FOX BOUTIQUE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06333 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://whitefoxboutique.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on August 17, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Comfort Club Oversized Hoodie Mist from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her 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; and that denied her the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the website by being unable to purchase the product, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. White Fox Boutique LLC operates the interactive website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's clothes, shoes and accessories.[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 WISCONSIN: Robillard Sues Over Flawed Extended Supervision Policy ----------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN ROBILLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JARED HOY, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01077-JPS (E.D. Wis., August 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Plaintiff brings this complaint to challenge the constitutionality of the policies and practices of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WDOC) related to parole holds placed on individuals on extended supervision. The Plaintiff alleges that systemic deficiencies in WDOC's policies and practices have caused WDOC's Electronic Monitoring Center to issue arrest warrants for individuals on extended supervision who are suspected of having tampered with their Global Positioning System monitors without taking reasonable measures to confirm whether the suspected tampering alert is related to an equipment malfunction. As a result, the Plaintiff was detained in jail for two days and nights due to a malfunctioning GPS device. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Avenue Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: (773) 283-3913 Email: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net - and - Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (847) 361-3869 Email: adele@civilrightschicago.com [*] Czech Law Caters Claims Related to Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------- On 1 July 2024, the long-awaited Act on Collective Civil Proceedings (the Class Actions Act) entered into force, allowing consumers and small entrepreneurs to pursue their claims in court together through a class action. The Class Actions Act transposes the EU Directive of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers. The aim of the Act is to ensure that consumers and small entrepreneurs have access to courts, which they might otherwise be unable to afford due to the high costs of legal proceedings. How does Czech law view class actions? Class (collective) actions are intended to provide a group of consumers with a tool by which they can effectively combine their claims into a single legal proceeding, resulting in one judgment from the court. Up until recently, if a larger group of consumers was affected by an entrepreneur's unlawful activity, the courts would hear each case separately. Dishonest entrepreneurs were able to exploit their stronger position, expecting consumers not to pursue claims of lesser financial value. Collective proceedings are designed to streamline court proceedings, reduce costs for both consumers and defendants and provide consistent rulings in cases with similar facts. Before the new Act was implemented, Czech legislation did not regulate the collective protection of individual rights in collective proceedings. Although certain aspects were addressed in specific laws, there was no comprehensive regulation. Elements of collective protection were present in what was known as the collective protection of rights.1 This extended the effects of the legal force of a decision in certain cases to individuals other than the parties to the proceedings, provided they had the same claims against the defendant arising from the same act or condition. What claims will consumers be able to pursue collectively? Collective proceedings will address disputes between consumers and entrepreneurs regarding the rights or legitimate interests of consumers. These claims must have a similar factual and legal basis, meaning they are either the same or so similar that it is efficient to hear them together. There are no restrictions on the type or nature of the claim. Consumers may seek: -- Payment of a sum of money, provision of other substitutable consideration, repair or replacement of goods, a price reduction or withdrawal from the contract, etc. -- An order for the entrepreneur to refrain from unlawful conduct -- A determination of whether or not there is a legal relationship or right Only consumers' claims arising after 24 November 2020 can be pursued in collective proceedings. Regarding ongoing proceedings, individual proceedings that were initiated before 25 June 2023 will be completed under the previous legislation Who can file a class action and how? Class actions cannot be brought by the affected consumers themselves. Only nonprofit organizations, with a long history of consumer protection, that are registered with the Ministry of Industry and Trade or European Commission can file class actions. These organizations must also be represented by an associate in the proceedings. In the first instance, the Municipal Court in Prague will have exclusive jurisdiction over collective proceedings in the Czech Republic. The Class Actions Act follows an opt-in approach; this means consumers must actively register their claims. It defines "consumers" as natural persons acting outside the scope of their business or profession. Additionally, entrepreneurs employing fewer than 10 persons and with an annual turnover or balance sheet total not exceeding CZK 50 million is also considered a consumer in this context. A class action is admissible if at least 10 consumers register their claims. Additional consumers can join the class action by registering, and they will all be designated as "interested class members'" in the proceedings. The class members themselves are not parties to the proceedings and have only limited rights within them. (For example, they may withdraw their registration, comment on the subject matter or conduct of the proceedings; they have a right to be informed, to object to a proposed settlement, amendment or withdrawal of a class action, or to comment on an appeal). What is the course of a collective proceedings? Compared to ordinary civil proceedings, collective proceedings are more complex. They involve two stages: 1. Determining the admissibility of the class action 2. Examining the merits of the case. Once a group of at least 10 members with similar claims is assembled, a nonprofit organization can assume the role of plaintiff and file the class action. The filing must meet legal requirements; it must include a statement that it is a class action, with all the prerequisites for class membership; it must also include a detailed description of what the plaintiff is seeking on behalf of the class members and an indication whether the plaintiff is seeking fees. At this stage, the plaintiff is not required to provide the consent (opt-in) of 10 specific individuals. The court is merely considering whether there is a potentially larger class of persons affected by the conduct alleged in the class action. Consumers may register for the collective proceedings beginning from the filing of the class action until the registration period expires. The court sets the registration period in the resolution on admissibility of the class action, which should last between two to four months from the publication of the resolution in the register of class actions. The registration must be submitted using the prescribed form, available on www.justice.cz2. By registering, the consumer becomes an interested class member and thus acquires the procedural rights associated with this status in the collective proceedings. Registration in a class action proceeding prevents a class member from asserting the same right in another legal proceeding. Once the collective proceedings have commenced, the court will first assess the admissibility of the class action. If it is admitted, the court issues a resolution on the admissibility of the class action. If, on the other hand, the conditions are not met, the collective proceedings must be discontinued, and the individuals will be free to file claims in individual proceedings. Both parties to the proceedings (i.e., the nonprofit representing the class members and the defendant, but not the class members) can appeal the court's resolution. Collective proceedings on the merits begin on the date the resolution on admissibility of the class action is published in the register of collective proceedings. With some exceptions, the continuation of the collective proceedings is similar to ordinary civil proceedings, i.e., the court assesses the claims and decides on the class action, after which the parties may appeal. What costs are associated with participating in collective proceedings? There are no costs or fees for consumers to join the proceedings, even if the class action is unsuccessful. The costs of a class action are generally covered by the parties to the action -- the nonprofit organization as the plaintiff, or the entrepreneur as defendant. However, if the class action is successful, the plaintiff will be entitled to a fee of up to 16 percent of the amount awarded by the court to the consumers or, in the case of non-monetary benefits, a lump-sum fee of up to CZK 2.5 million (approximately EUR100,000). Where can the current collective proceedings be found? The Class Actions Act establishes a register of collective proceedings3 where essential documents from collective proceedings will be published. This register includes a list of individual collective proceedings in which the admissibility of a class action has been decided. The data and documents published in the register are publicly accessible. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***