/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240909.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, September 9, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 181
Headlines
1ST FRANKLIN: Moreland Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
2U INC: Continues to Defend Beaumont Securities Class Suit
808 LEX: Kaufman Dolowich LLP Relieved as Counsel in Tenezaca
AIR PRODUCTS: Camcara Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 27
AIRBNB INC: Ly "Properties' Rental" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ALASKA AIRLINES: Clarkson Seeks to Modify August 4, 2020 Order
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Must File Renewed Bid to Dismiss by Sept. 13
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Seeks to File Confidential Material Under Seal
ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Deal Sought
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
ALLY BANK: Migliaccio Consumer Suit Removed to D. Maine
AM RETAIL GROUP: Morris Seeks to Certify Class
AMAZON.COM INC: Bid for Reconsideration Tossed in Garner Class Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Case Schedule
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Desousa Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
AMERICAN FAMILY: Filing for Class Cert Replies Extended to Sept. 20
AMERICAN HONDA: Fausto Sues Over Defective Infotainment System
AMERICAN HONDA: Shammam Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 7, 2025
AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Calif.
AMPLITUDE INC: Continues to Defend Pension Fund Class Suit
ANCESTRY.COM LLC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Wilson
ANTHROPIC PBC: Court Enters Order on Settlement in Graeber
APOLLO GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Stockholder Deal-Related Suit
APOLLO GLOBAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
APPLE INC: Andino Bid for Protective Order Tossed
ARCHER AVIATION: Continues to Defend Fiduciary Duties Breach Suits
ARGO GROUP: Continues to Defend Police & Fire Retirement Class Suit
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Ruling on Plymouth Class Suit Pending
ARROW FINANCIAL: Agreement in Principle in Ashe Suit for Court OK
ASTROPHYSICS INC: Faces Ortiz Class Action Suit in Cal. Super Ct.
AVFUEL CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Clark Suit Says
AXT INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
BACKYARD PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Shed Builder's OT Wages Under FLSA
BANK OF AMERICA: Can File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
BARILLA AMERICA: Loses Bid to Reconsider May 28, 2024 Order
BH MANAGEMENT: Parties Seek Extension of Dispositive Bid
BODYCOTE THERMAL: Class Action Settlement in Cruz Gets Final Nod
BOZZUTO'S INC: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply
BRAINSTORM CELL: Reply in Support of Bid to Dismiss Due Sept. 13
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Kennedy Class Suit in Mass.
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit in Georgia
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit in Georgia
BRONX COMMUNITY: Parties in Crawford Must Confer Class Cert Sched
BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: Camden Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
BUMBLE INC: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for Oct. 23
CACI INTERNATIONAL: Kuentz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CAMBIUM NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Hamby Shareholder Class Suit
CERENCE INC: Continues to Defend Pena Class Suit in Illinois
CERENCE INC: Continues to Securities Suit in Massachusetts
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Loughran Class Suit Over Cash Sweep Program
CINTAS CORPORATION: Court Certifies Nationwide Class in Hawkins
CLEAN HARBORS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Kruezell Suit
CLEANSPARK INC: Discovery in Bishins Suit Ongoing
CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Burnett Class Suit
COLORADO: Rich Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge Varholak
COMMUNICATION FEDERAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Hinson Says
COMMUNICATION FEDERAL: Fails to Secure Info, Jackson Suit Says
COMPASS GROUP: Court Affirms Judge's Rule 11 Order in O'Brien
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suit
CORNBREAD IP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Vega Alleges
CROCS INC: Valentine Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Reply
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Shongo Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CYTODYN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Washington
DISPLAYMAX INC: Cox Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA
DMCG INC: Abeyta Must File Reply Brief by Sept. 20.
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Virginia
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Trial Extended to February 2026
ECHOSTAR CORP: Continues to Defend Lingam Securities Class Suit
ECHOSTAR CORP: Continues to Defend Owen-Brooks Data Breach Suit
ECHOSTAR CORP: Dish Network Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Suit
EDISON SPA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Claude Says
ELI LILLY & CO: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California
ELI LILLY & CO: Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
EMBLEMHEALTH INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Hold Class Cert Bid Deadline
ENVESTNET INC: Continues to Defend Wesch Class Suit in California
EQUIFAX INFO: Bid to Lodge Docs Under Seal Tossed
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suit
EUSD BOARD: Mirabelli Seeks Reconsideration of August 26 Order
EUSD BOARD: Seeks to Continue Summary Judgment Bid
EXPENSIFY INC: Continues to Defend Wilhite Securities Class Suit
EXTREME NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Steamfitters Local Class Suit
FANDOM INC: Beke Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
FANDOM INC: Beke VPPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: Discovery in Besser Securities Suit Ongoing
FLOCK FOODS: Website Inaccessible to Blind People, Fagnani Says
FLORISUN LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Alleges
FRASS BOX: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Alleges
GARNET HEALTH: Faces ERISA Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
GATOR RAILWAY: Commercial Property Violated ADA, Brito Alleges
GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend CMWA, TVPA-Related Suit
GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend TVPA Class Suit in California
GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend VWP Class Suit in California
GEORGETOWN CORNER: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Desousa Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
GOOD GRADES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Igartua Alleges
HAPPY DAYS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Igartua Alleges
HARMONIOUS HEALING: Luna Seeks Straight Time Employees' OT Pay
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Bhangal Securities Suit
HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Marshall Removed From State Court to C.D. Cal.
HOME DEPOT: Loveland Suit Removed From State Court to N.D. Cal.
HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Seeks Sept. 20 Extension of Reply Brief Filing
HUB CYBER: Prelim. Hearing on Avner Bid to Certify Set for Nov. 4
ILLINOIS: Faces McKinzie Class Suit Over Release of Prisoners
ILLINOIS: Violates IDEA and ADA, Herbert Class Suit Alleges
INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Grobler Securities Class Suit
INOTIV INC: Timeline for Final OK of Settlement Still Not Set
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Class Cert Hearing Modified to Jan. 23, 2025
J. DAVID TAX: Bid to Strike Iverson Class Allegations Tossed
J.B. PRITZKER: Court Narrows Claims in Key Suit
J.M. SMUCKER: Class Cert. Bid in Jeruchim Due Jan. 27, 2025
JELLYCAT INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Says
JENSEN-LEWIS EAST: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hernandez Says
JOHN FEYEN: Rich Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Dixon Class Suit
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Jones Class Suit
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Zigler Class Suit
JONES LANG: Serra's Bid for Class Certification Due Feb. 6, 2025
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Deposit Sweep Program
JWB PROPERTY: Bid to Compel Responses Granted in Byrd Class Suit
JWB PROPERTY: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended in Byrd Suit
KOOTENAI HEALTH: Faces Capello Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
KRAEMER NORTH: Settlement Class Certified in Blackwell Suit
KROGER CO: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Briefing
KROGER CO: Seeks to File Sur-Reply in Kirkbride Class Suit
LANSING COMMUNITY: Court Conditionally Certifies Class
LESLIE'S INC: Continues to Defend WPBPPF Securities Class Suit
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Jackson Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to N.D. W.Va.
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Torres Seeks to Vacate Class Cert. Deadline
LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Continues to Defend Armand Class Suit
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Continues to Defend Strong Class Suit
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Bid to Certify Class Granted in Aley Suit
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Unredacted Version of Class Cert Must Be Sealed
LINCARE INC: Morris Allowed Leave to File Reply
LIVE CONSTRUCTION: Lata Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under NYLL
LIVE NATION: Faces Jacobson Suit Over Ticket Sales Monopoly
LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Gibbs Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
LOS ANGELES, CA: Fact Discovery in Jenkins Due Jan. 21, 2025
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 17, 2025
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Class Settlement in Davis Gets Initial Nod
MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC: Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA
MAPLE LEAF: Faces Demaio Class Suit Over Text Message Sales Calls
MARATHON CHEESE: Settlement in Ackley Gets Initial Nod
MARIO'S AIR: Bid to Extend Deadlines in Germain Suit OK'd
MARS WRIGLEY: Court Narrows Claims in Frias Suit
MARYLAND: Court Narrows Claims in T.G. Suit
MAYAN LLC: Thompson Sues Over Withheld Tips & Wages Under FLSA
MCLANE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Prado Suit Amended to Nov. 22
MDL 2670: StarKist Settlement Gets Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Class Settlement in Barton v. Mattel Wins Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Class Settlement in Black v. Mattel Wins Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Class Settlement in Nabong v. Mattel Wins Initial Nod
MDL 2903: Class Settlement in Pasternacki v. Fisher-Price Granted
MDL 2903: Settlement in Hanson v. Fisher-Price Wins Initial Nod
MERCK SHARP: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Denied
MERCY HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Shine Due Sept. 12
MERIDIAN SERVICES: Finch Seeks Hourly Employees' Unpaid Overtime
META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cook Due April 24, 2025
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Granted
MOHATRA INC: De la Torre Alleges Inaccessible Commercial Property
MOLLY FRANCIS: Zirus Suit Seeks to Certify Class
MONTE NIDO: Casey Bid to Appoint Class Counsel Nixed w/o Prejudice
MWB CORP: Fails to Pay Cook's OT Wages Under FLSA, Green Alleges
NEW YORK, NY: Bid for Summary Judgment in Allen Class Suit Granted
NORDIC NATURALS: Parties Seek April 15, 2025 Class Cert Deadline
NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Bolch Suit Over Mismanaged Foster Care System
NRA GROUP: Chamberlain's Bid for Class Certification Granted
OLDS PRODUCTS: Seeks Leave to File Surreply Brief in Quiroga Suit
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pauli Bid for Class Certification Denied
OUTPATIENT SERVICES: Edwards Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
PAAL REALTY: Faces Cheli ADA Suit Over Architectural Barriers
PAMELA GORRIE: Stadtler's Bid for Summary Judgment Granted in Part
PATHFINDER SOFTWARE: Stauffer Class Settlement Gets Final Nod
PAYCOR INC: Must Respond to Johns Class Cert Bid by Sept. 17
PLAID PANTRY: Ensign Class Suit Removed From State Court to D. Or.
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parmenter's Bid for Class Cert. Tossed
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Theodore Suit for Court Okay
R.C. BIGELOW: Newton Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
REDWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend Lemen Class Suit in Florida
RELIANT LIFE: Reed Bid for Class Certification Tossed
RETSEL CORP: Bid to Exclude Settlement Offers Partly OK'd
RHHC TRIOS: Class Settlement in Kurtz Suit Gets Final Nod
ROBLOX CORP: Alexandru Tudose Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
ROMEO POWER: Request for Service Awards Partly OK'd
ROMEO'S PIZZA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Branning Due Oct. 22
RUNNEMEDE, NJ: Faces Peek Suit Over Property Registration Fees
RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Parties Seek to Certify Plan Participant Class
SAGE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Korver Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
SALEFORCE.COM: Miguel Seeks Initial Status of Settlement Class
SAN DIEGO DIALYSIS: Initial Joint Bid to Stay Discovery Tossed
SAZERAC CO: Bid to Seal Class Cert Docs Temporarily OK'd in Andrews
SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks to Compel Depositions of Declarants
SHARI REDSTONE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
SHEN YUN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Suit Says
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Salhotra Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs
SMITH GAMBRELL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Owens Extended to Dec. 9
SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Class Cert Scheduling Order Extended in Lyngaas
SOUTH SUBURBAN: Faces Little Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Jones Says
STAFF SUPPORT: Bid for Initial Approval of Settlement Tossed
STEAK N SHAKE: Faces Massel Class Suit Over Biometrics Collection
STEPHEN SMITH: Violated Plaintiff Class' Rights, Court Says
STORYBUILT LLC: Plante Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Employee Class
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Oct. 7
STREAMLABS LLC: Class Settlement in Leventhal Gets Initial Nod
SUPERNOVA PARTNERS: Jandreau Balks at Merger With Offerpad
TAKEDA PHARMA: Seeks to Seal Portion of Bid to Strike Declaration
TSAROUHIS LAW: Conditional Cert. of Settlement Class Sought in Yoo
TTEC SERVICES: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid Opposition
UNION PACIFIC: Class Cert Discovery in Black Suit Due June 25, 2025
UNITED PARKS: Parties Must Confer Class Cert. Deadlines
UNITED STATES: Burton's Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
UNITED UROLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Miller Says
VAXART INC: Seeks to Initially Seal Class Cert Docs in Himmelberg
VC MARIN: Faces Stephens Class Action Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
VISA INC: Bid to Decertify Class Tossed in B & R Supermarket Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Dack Lawsuit
VPC IMPACT: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
WALMART INC: Hawkins Bid Remand to State Court Tossed
WARNER MUSIC: Filing for Class Cert Response Extended to Sept. 19
WARNER MUSIC: Must File Class Cert Reply in Hall Suit by Sept. 19
WESTERN CONFERENCE: Class Cert Discovery Extended to Nov. 1
WESTERN CONFERENCE: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Deadline
WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Graber Suit w/o Prejudice
WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Tjahjono
WESTLAKE CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in New York
WHITEPAGES INC: Jackson Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to N.D.W.Va.
WOODSTREAM CORP: Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Opposition Under Seal
WORKERS CREDIT: Encarnacion Seeks Class Settlement Approval
XE HOLDING: Court Dismisses Brink 4th Amended Complaint
YOUNG LIVING: Seeks Reconsideration of June 13, 2024 Order
YUSEN LOGISTICS: Bermudez Suit Removed to C.D. California
ZILLOW GROUP: Jaeger Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE: Hale Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
*********
1ST FRANKLIN: Moreland Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------
1st Franklin Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2024, that the Moreland class
suit is stayed favoring arbitration.
On or about November 17, 2022, five (5) putative class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in March 2023.
All five (5) cases were consolidated into one, known as: Moreland
v. 1st Franklin Financial Corporation, the plaintiffs generally
assert claims of negligence, breach of implied contract and
violations of the Georgia Deceptive Practices Act, on behalf of a
putative class of individuals whose personally identifiable
information ("PII") was accessed in the November 2022 cyber-attack
on the Company.
The Company has successfully defended the consolidated case and on
January 11, 2024, the Court administratively dismissed the entire
case.
The plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court to reconsider its
decision, which the Court denied on April 4, 2024.
The court has indefinitely stayed the putative class action case in
favor of arbitration.
The arbitration settlement estimate is well within the remaining
security limits.
Hendersonville, North Carolina-based 1st Financial Services
Corporation is the bank holding company for Mountain 1st Bank &
Trust Company. 1st Financial has essentially no other assets or
liabilities other than its investment in the Bank. 1st Financial's
business activity consists of directing the activities of the Bank.
The Bank has a wholly owned subsidiary, Clear Focus Holdings LLC.
2U INC: Continues to Defend Beaumont Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
2U 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 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Beaumont securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.
On June 13, 2024, the Company, Christoper Paucek, Paul Lalljie, and
Matt Norden were named as defendants in a putative securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland.
The plaintiff Michael Beaumont, who seeks to represent a class of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired 2U
securities between February 9, 2022 and February 12, 2024, alleges
that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, and, therefore,
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
In addition, the plaintiff alleges that Messrs. Paucek, Lallije and
Norden violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages against the
defendants, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action,
and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
On July 30, 2024, 2U filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy and
Imposition of Automatic Stay pursuant to Section 362(A) of the
Bankruptcy Code.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit, and it
intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
2U is an education technology company that works with universities
to provide online graduate programs and certificates for working
adults.[BN]
808 LEX: Kaufman Dolowich LLP Relieved as Counsel in Tenezaca
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfonso Tenezaca, et al.,
v. 808 Lex Restaurant, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08545-JGLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica Clarke etered an order granting
request relieving Kaufman Dolowich LLP as counsel for Defendants
and staying this matter for 30 days to afford Defendants an
opportunity to find new counsel.
-- The Defendants' deadline to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification currently due on August 28, 2024 and the
Parties' status report currently due on August 28, 2024 be held in
abeyance pending the Court’s decision on our motion to withdraw.
The Court sees no reason why the application to withdraw should be
made ex parte. Indeed, the Court must hear from Plaintiffs
regarding any prejudice that they might suffer as a result of
granting the motion to withdraw and must hear from Plaintiffs
regarding a stay.
Furthermore, given the very general description of the conflicts at
issue, the vast majority of counsel's letter is not privileged.
Counsel is permitted to redact the amount of fees owed and
references to specific communications with Defendants.
Counsel shall refile the letter with limited and appropriate
redactions no later than Aug. 30, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VEaN7e at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew Cohen, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP
135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
Woodbury, NY 11797
Telephone: (516) 681-1100
E-mail: mcohen@kaufmandolowich.com
AIR PRODUCTS: Camcara Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 27
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CamCara, Inc.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, d/b/a
AST Manufacturing, v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Case No.
5:21-cv-02264-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Schmehl
entered an order granting the joint stipulation requesting
extension of certain dates in the July 10, 2024, joint stipulation
and order as follows:
1. The deadline for the parties to conclude expert depositions,
if
any, shall be extended from Aug. 30, 2024 to Sept. 20, 2024;
2. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class
certification and supporting brief shall be extended from
Sept. 27, 2024 to Oct. 18, 2024;
3. The deadline for Defendant to file a brief in opposition to
the
motion for class certification shall be extended from Nov. 1,
2024 to Nov. 22, 2024; and
4. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply brief in further
support of its motion for class certification shall be
extended
from Nov. 22, 2024 to Dec. 20, 2024.
Air Products is an American international corporation whose
principal business is selling gases and chemicals for industrial
use.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yAdJQj at no extra
charge.
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff:
Stephanie C. Chomentowski, Esq.
Heidi G. Crikelair, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
One Logan Square
130 North 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
Telephone: (215) 569-6998
E-mail: chomentowski@blankrome.com
hcrikelair@blankrome.com
Counsel for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant:
William H. Narwold, Esq.
Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
Jessica C. Colombo, Esq.
Michael J. Quirk, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
One Corporate Center
20 Church Street, 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 882-1681
Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
mjasinski@motleyrice.com
jcolombo@motleyrice.com
mquirk@motleyrice.com
AIRBNB INC: Ly "Properties' Rental" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMED LY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AIRBNB, INC., a
Delaware corporation; BRIAN CHESKY, CEO of Airbnb, Inc.; STEPHEN
BRIGHENTI, an individual; DOES 1-100, Case No. 1:24-cv-00921-GBW
(D. Del.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying a class consisting of:
"all individuals who rented properties through the Airbnb
platform
and suffered harm due to Airbnb's alleged systemic failures to
ensure the safety and habitability of those properties";
-- appointing class representatives and class counsel to represent
the interests of the class; and
-- appointing Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.
The requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are fully
satisfied, and certification of the proposed class 195 will allow
for the efficient and fair resolution of this significant matter.
The Plaintiff rented a property through Airbnb that was riddled
with dangerous conditions, including mold growth, structural
instability, faulty electrical wiring, and inadequate fire safety
measures. Despite knowing about these hazardous conditions, Airbnb
allegedly failed to take adequate steps to mitigate the risks or
inform the Plaintiff and other renters, leading to severe physical
and financial harm.
Airbnb is an American company operating an online marketplace for
short-and-long-term homestays and experiences in various countries
and regions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dhlhEP at no extra
charge.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
ALASKA AIRLINES: Clarkson Seeks to Modify August 4, 2020 Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY CLARKSON, v. ALASKA
AIRLINES, INC., HORIZON AIR INDUSTRIES, INC., and ALASKA AIRLINES
PENSION/BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Case No.
2:19-cv-00005-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c),
modifying its prior Order Partially Granting Motion for Class
Certification dated Aug. 4, 2020, in connection with the proposed
settlement of this action.
Specifically, the Plaintiff requests that the Court: (1) set a
class period end date for the Paid Leave Class of May 31, 2023 for
purposes of settlement, and (2) appoint three absent members of the
Paid Leave Class, Matt Fisk, Ryan Schwend, and Scott Silvester (the
"Additional Class Representatives"), as Class Representatives.
On Oct. 11, 2023, the parties held an all-day, in-person mediation
with the assistance of Hunter Hughes, an independent mediator.
Because Mr. Clarkson was no longer a military servicemember and
thus would not benefit personally from non-monetary relief
negotiated on behalf of the Class, Class Counsel sought the
assistance of Class Members who were both current Alaska/Horizon
pilots and current military servicemembers.
Mr. Fisk, a Horizon pilot from April 2018 through May 2024 and a
member of the Washington Air National Guard since January 2009,
agreed to assist with the negotiations, as did Mr. Schwend and Mr.
Silvester.
The parties—together with the Additional Class
Representatives—then held a second all-day, hybrid
in-person/remote mediation on Dec. 6, 2023, also facilitated by Mr.
Hughes.
The parties reached agreement on the principal non-monetary terms
of settlement at that mediation.
Mr. Clarkson served in the Washington Air National Guard from
November 2013 through June 2018, spanning his employment with both
Alaska and Horizon. By the time he filed this case in January 2019,
he had retired from military service.
Alaska Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in
SeaTac, Washington, within the Seattle metropolitan area.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lTX4SK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
Colin M. Downes, Esq.
BARTON & DOWNES LLP
1633 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 200
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com
colin@bartondownes.com
- and -
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
Hannah Cole-Chu, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com
hcoleschu@outtengolden.com
- and -
Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
PETER ROMER-FRIEDMAN
LAW PLLC
1629 K Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 355-6364
E-mail: peter@prf-law.com
- and -
Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
RIVERSIDE LAW GROUP, PLLC
905 W. Riverside Ave. Suite 404
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 850-7011
E-mail: mzc@rnwlg.com
- and -
Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS
JARRARD, PLLC
1020 N. Washington St.
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (425) 239-7290
E-mail: tjarrard@att.net
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Must File Renewed Bid to Dismiss by Sept. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PARKS, et al., v.
Alejandro Mayorkas, Case No. 1:23-cv-03561 (D.D.C., Filed Nov. 29,
2023), the Hon. Judge Randolph D. Moss entered a scheduling order:
-- Deadline for defendant to file renewed Sept. 13, 2024
motion to dismiss on or before:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Opposition Oct. 4, 2024
to Motion to Dismiss on or before:
-- Deadline for Defendant to file its Reply Oct. 18, 2024
Within 21 days of the Court's ruling on
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on or
Before:
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment
Discrimination.[CC]
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Seeks to File Confidential Material Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY SNOW, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY,
INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-03269-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order granting Defendant's second amended
administrative motion for leave to file under seal confidential
material in support of the parties' class certification and summary
judgment briefing.
Pursuant to the Court's Order Regarding Outstanding Sealing Motions
issued on July 26, 2024, Align has significantly pared back
redactions on the vast majority of documents and has entirely
unsealed 39 additional documents.
The Confidential Material that Align seeks leave to file under seal
either partially or in their entirety consist of the following:
1. Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class
Certification
and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof,
originally filed under seal at ECF No. 390-2, and certain
exhibits attached to the declaration of Steve W. Berman in
support thereof.
2. Align's Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and
Daubert
Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony (“Class Opp.”),
originally
filed under seal at ECF No. 425-3, and certain exhibits
attached
to the declaration of James M. Pearl in support thereof.
3. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion for Class
Certification, originally filed under seal.
Align Technology is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners
and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YwQ28n at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
James M. Pearl, Esq.
Emma Farrow, Esq.
Thomas A. Counts, Esq.
Michael F. Murray, Esq.
Adam M. Reich, Esq.
Noah B. Pinegar, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 620-5700
Facsimile: (310) 620-5899
E-mail: jamespearl@paulhastings.com
emmafarrow@paulhastings.com
tomcounts@paulhastings.com
michaelmurray@paulhastings.com
adamreich@paulhastings.com
noahpinegar@paulhastings.com
ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Deal Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CEVASCO, JACK
JONES, PATRICK JACKSON, and PAUL RADVANSKY on behalf of the
Allegiant 401(k) Retirement Plan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY, Case No.
2:22-cv-01741-JAD-DJA (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting:
(i) preliminarily approval of the Class Action Settlement
Agreement;
(ii) certification of the proposed Class for settlement purposes
defined as:
"All persons who were participants or beneficiaries of the
Plan at any time during the Class Period of Oct. 17, 2016
through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order";
(iii) establishment of a plan for providing notice of the
Settlement to Class Members;
(iv) appointment of Class Counsel;
(v) approval of the Settling Parties' selection of a Settlement
Administrator; and
(vi) the setting of a hearing for consideration of final
approval
of the Settlement and consideration of Class Counsel's
anticipated motion for Case Contribution Awards to the
Plaintiffs and an award of attorney's fees and
reimbursement
of litigation expenses.
Plaintiffs rely on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and
Exhibits filed herewith.
The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Allegiant 401(k)
Retirement Plan, and the Defendant entered into a Class Action
Settlement Agreement to resolve the Plaintiffs' claims under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").
The Defendant has agreed to pay $1.7 million to resolve the
Plaintiffs' claims.
On Oct. 27, 2022, the Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a
Class Action Complaint.
The Plaintiff alleged that throughout the Class Period, Defendant
selected a slate of investment options for the Plan that were
imprudent due to their high fees, when lower-cost share class of
identical funds – differing only in cost – were available to
the Plan
On Jan. 26, 2024, Plaintiff Cevasco moved to amend his Class Action
Complaint to add three new named plaintiffs ˗ Jack Jones, Patrick
Jackson, and Paul Radvansky to preempt Defendant's standing
argument as to Plaintiff Cevasco, which Magistrate Judge Daniel J.
Albregts granted.
Allegiant Travel is an American airline holding and hospitality
company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FHWHg5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Kind, Esq.
KIND LAW
8860 S. Maryland Parkway, Suite 106
Las Vegas, NV
Telephone: (702) 337-2322
E-mail: mk@kindlaw.com
- and -
Michael C. McKay, Esq.
MCKAY LAW, LLC
5635 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 170
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
Telephone: (480) 681-7000
E-mail: mckay@mckaylaw.us
- and -
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
- and -
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, Pennsylvania 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASIBEL CANCHOLA, CARLOS
OCHOA, ROBERT SOUZA, and RICHARD CURTIS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order granting leave to file under seal the
following materials in support of Allstate's Opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:
-- Exhibits B-D, G, R-U, and exhibits 13-15, and 17 of Exhibit V
attached to the Declaration of Joshua A. Rubin;
-- Portions of Exhibits A, F, I, J, O, and exhibit 1, 8 to Exhibit
V
attached to the Rubin Decl.;
-- Certain portions of Exhibit V that reference the same subject
matter as the above exhibits.
Pursuant to L.R. 79-5.2.2, good cause exists to overcome the
"presumption of public access in civil cases" with respect to the
documents and exhibits identified above. This request is made
pending the Court's determination regarding the appropriateness of
the Plaintiffs' and Allstate's confidentiality designations.
Allstate has satisfied its meet and confer obligations under Local
Rule 7-5.2.2(b).
On July 18, 2023, the parties submitted a stipulated Protective
Order to govern the exchange of confidential information in this
case.
Allstate offers insurance for your car, home, rental, motorcycle
and more.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LL1Y5b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Neal Marder, Esq.
Joshua A. Rubin, Esq.
Robert G. Lian, Jr., Esq.
Katherine I. Heise, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
FELD LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 229-1000
Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com
rubinj@akingump.com
blian@akingump.com
kheise@akingump.com
- and -
Keith A. Jacoby, Esq.
Robert S. Blumberg, Esq.
Jaime B. Laurent, Esq.
Emily J. Atherton, Esq.
Jamar D. Davis, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (3100 553-0308
Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
ALLY BANK: Migliaccio Consumer Suit Removed to D. Maine
-------------------------------------------------------
PAUL MIGLIACCIO v. ALLY BANK, Case No. CV-24-141 (Filed July 25,
2024), was removed from the Superior Court for Kennebec County,
State of Maine, to the United States District Court for the
District of Maine on Aug. 28, 2024.
The District of Maine Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-00307-NT to the proceedings.
The Complaint alleges claims seeking relief on behalf of a putative
class of Maine consumers and alleges violations of the Maine Unfair
Trade Practices Act.
The Complaint also seeks attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 5
M.R.S.A. section 213.
The Complaint alleges the following putative class:
"all persons (i) who have bought a vehicle primarily for
personal, household or family use from a car dealer in Maine;
(ii) were charged document fees; and (iii) entered into a
finance contract that was assigned to the Defendant, Ally Bank
in the six years preceding the filing of this complaint."
Ally denies the allegations in the Complaint, denies that Plaintiff
has stated a claim for which relief may be granted, and denies that
Plaintiff has been damaged in any manner.
Nevertheless, assuming for jurisdictional purposes only that
Plaintiff's claims are valid, he could have originally filed his
Complaint in this Court and removal is proper..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Z. Steed, Esq.
ISLAND JUSTICE
P.O. Box 711
Stonington, ME 04681
Telephone: (202) 200-7077
E-mail: john@islandjusticelaw.com
- and -
Sigmund D. Schutz, Esq.
PRETI FLAHERTY, LLP
One City Center
P. O. Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112-9546
Telephone: (207) 791-3000
E-mail: sschutz@preti.com
AM RETAIL GROUP: Morris Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Morris, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AM RETAIL GROUP,
INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01113-NJ (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
-- certifying the proposed classes,
-- appointing the Plaintiff as class representative,
-- appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel,
-- staying the class certification motion until an amended motion
for
class certification is filed, and
-- granting the parties relief from the local rules' automatic
briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief
and
supporting documents in support of this motion.
Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff’s favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion.
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.
As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed.
AM Retail offers sportswear, outerwear, dresses, footwear, and
handbags.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R7dkex at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620,
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Bid for Reconsideration Tossed in Garner Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAELI GARNER, et al., v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No.
2:21-cv-00750-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert Lasnik
entered an order denying Defendants' motion for reconsideration.
On July 31, 2024, the Court granted in part defendants' motion for
leave to file an overlength motion for summary judgment,
authorizing defendants to file a motion of up to 16,800 words
(approximately 48 pages).
The Plaintiffs requested an opportunity to oppose the request for
leave to file an overlength motion, but it was denied as moot.
Defendants now seek reconsideration, arguing that the Court’s
interpretation of the local rules of this district is manifest
error and that they cannot possibly address the standing of ten
individual plaintiffs in less than 42,000 words (approximately 120
pages).
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9YLLV1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Case Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAFARI MBADIWE and RACHEL
MILLER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-09542-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Vernon Broderick entered an order that the Parties shall
meet and confer regarding an appropriate case schedule in view of
the circumstances present at that time, including, if necessary, a
modified schedule for class-certification briefing.
Within 14 calendar days of meeting and conferring, if appropriate,
the Parties shall submit to the Court a joint proposed schedule for
further proceedings in this matter setting forth the Parties’
respective individual or joint positions.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XB22ch at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Goldman, Esq.
BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP
903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
San Clemente, CA 92673
Telephone: (949) 369-3700
E-mail: dgoldman@bklwlaw.com
- and -
Gordon Ball, Esq.
GORDON BALL, PLLC
3728 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37205
Telephone: (865) 525-7028
E-mail: gball@gordonball.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Meredith Dearborn, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
mdearborn@paulweiss.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Desousa Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHELE'AN DESOUSA v. AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, Case No.
204203057 (Fla, Cir., Osceola County, Aug. 7, 2024) is class action
complaint against American Express alleging violations of the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in attempting to collect
such debt by communicating with Plaintiff and others similarly
situated between the hours of 9:00p.m. and 8:00 a.m. without prior
consent and brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.220.
The Plaintiff opened an account with Defendant for personal or
household use. He contends that she never provided the Defendant
with consent to communicate with her between the hours of 9:00 p.m.
and 8:00 a.m.
The Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and costs and
attorneys' fees from Defendant.
This class action is brought on each Plaintiff's own behalf and on
behalf of all other similarly situated consumers under Fla. R. Civ.
P. 1.220(b)(1)(A) and in the alternative Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.220(b)(3). The class is defined as:
"All consumers in the State of Florida who were sent
correspondence and/or notices from Defendant substantially
similar or materially identical to the emails sent to Plaintiff,
relating to a consumer debt, between the hours of 9:00 pm and
8:00 am in their respective time zone without the
consumer's.
The Defendant was and is a National Bank, with its principal place
of business in the state of Utah, does business in the state of
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kaelyn Diamond, Esq.
ZIEGLER DIAMOND LAW: DEBT FIGHTERS
2430 Estancia Boulevard, Unit 108
Clearwater, FL 33761
Telephone: (727) 538-4188
Facsimile: (727) 362-4778
E-mail: kaelyn@attorneydebtfighters.com
service@attorneydebtfighters.com
- and -
Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
Alejandro J. Mendez, Esq.
Kellie N. O'connell, Esq.
SHRADER, MENDEZ & OCONNELL
612 W. Bay Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 360-1529
Facsimile: (813) 336-0832
E-mail: bshrader@shraderlawfirm.com
amendez@shraderlawfirm.com
koconnell@shraderlawfirm.com
AMERICAN FAMILY: Filing for Class Cert Replies Extended to Sept. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Connor McCluskey, et al.,
v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-01002 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Nov. 2, 2020), the Hon. Judge
James D. Peterson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to extend until September 20 their deadline to
file replies in support of their motion to exclude and motion for
class certification.
As it did on May 6, 2024, the court again cautions the parties that
the Dec. 18, 2024, deadline to file summary judgment motions is not
moving, notwithstanding this additional two-week bump in class
certification briefing. The parties must plan accordingly.
The nature of suit states Diversity -- Contract Default.
AmFam is an American private mutual company that focuses on
property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers commercial
insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage as well as
investment and retirement-planning products.[CC]
AMERICAN HONDA: Fausto Sues Over Defective Infotainment System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Fausto and Sean Fausto, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case
No. 2:24-cv-07308-SPG-JC (C.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2024) is a class
action lawsuit against American Honda brought by the Plaintiffs and
on their own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of past and
present Ohio owners and lessees of the following 2020-2022 Honda
Pilot (all except LX), 2020 Honda Passport (all except Sport),
2021-2022 Honda Passport, and 2020-2022 Honda Odyssey (all except
LX) vehicles ("Class Vehicles").
The Plaintiffs and the Class were damaged because the Class
Vehicles contain a defective infotainment system that produces an
intermittent, unpredictable, and loud popping and/or crackling
noise from the speakers ("Electrical Defect").
The manufacturing and/or assembly Defect existed at the time these
Class Vehicles containing the infotainment system left the hands of
Honda. When the Defect occurs, it does so abruptly and
unpredictably, startling the driver and the passengers, and poses a
safety risk because the Defect can cause the driver to become
distracted. Honda either knew of the defect before marketing the
Vehicles or failed to conduct adequate testing of the Vehicles
system prior to its release.
Regardless, soon after the release of the Vehicles, and before
Plaintiffs purchased their Class Vehicle, Honda must have known of
the defect based on the numerous customer complaints it received
and own investigation of the Defect, and based on it settling two
class action lawsuits alleging the Defect in prior model year Honda
and Acura vehicles, yet Honda continued to market and sell the
Vehicles.
Under the Vehicles' New Vehicle Limited Warranty, Honda is required
to "repair or replace any part that is defective in material or
workmanship under normal use." But, despite issuing several
Technical Service Bulletins ("TSB"), and settling two class action
lawsuits involving substantially the same Defect in 2018- 2019
Honda Odyssey, 2019 Honda Pilot, and 2019 Honda Passport vehicles,
and 2019-2020 Acura vehicle, for years Honda failed to identify a
solution to the Electrical Defect and instead simply replaced
defective parts with equally defective parts, thereby leaving
consumers caught in a cycle of use, malfunction, and replacement.
The Plaintiffs provided an authorized Honda dealership and Honda
engineers seven attempts to repair their vehicle but the vehicle
continued to suffer from the Electrical Defect after each repair
attempt.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action for breach of express
and implied warranties, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment,
and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.
The Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated. To remedy Honda's
unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs, on behalf of proposed class members,
seek damages and restitution from Honda, as well as notification to
Class members about the Defect.
Honda engineered, manufactured, tested, warranted, advertised,
distributed, sold, and leased the Class Vehicles equipped with
defective infotainment systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
1100 West Town & Country Rd., Suite 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Telephone: (480) 247-9644
Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Shammam Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 7, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTIN SHAMMAM,
individually and on behalf of others, v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-00648-H-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Valerie Torres entered an order as follows:
1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or
to
file additional pleadings shall be filed by Sept. 27, 2024.
2. Counsel shall appear for a video Status Conference before
Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres on Nov. 15, 2024 at 10:30
a.m. Instructions for remote appearances will be provided two
(2) business days prior to the conference.
3. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all
discovery related to class certification must be completed by
Dec. 20, 2024.
4. Plaintiff(s) must file a motion for class certification by
Feb. 7, 2025.
5. All parties must complete all fact discovery by March 21,
2025.
6. A Mandatory Settlement Conference ("MSC") shall be conducted
by
Zoom video conferencing on April 2, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. before
Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres.
7. The parties must designate their respective experts in
writing
by April 25, 2025.
8. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of
the Honorable Marylin L. Huff on Nov. 17, 2025 at 10:30 a.m.
American Honda offers a range of leasing and financing solutions
for automobiles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FuwVOi at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the California employment
class suit in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Los Angeles.
On June 20, 2024, a former employee ("Plaintiff") initiated an
employment litigation against Amphastar and IMS by filing a
complaint having individual and class action claims for alleged
violations of the California Labor Code pertaining to wage and
hour, and other state laws.
This Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California for
the County of Los Angeles.
An initial Status Conference is set for October 18, 2024.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff is seeking damages and related
remedies under California Law, as well as various penalty payments
under the California Labor Code.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the class
action complaint.
Based in Rancho Cucamonga, California, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals
Inc. manufactures injectable and inhaled drugs and drug delivery
systems. The Company also offers contractual manufacturing
services, including labeling and packaging, cold storage, and
aseptic filling.
AMPLITUDE INC: Continues to Defend Pension Fund Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Amplitude 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 Chicago & Vicinity Laborers' District Council
Pension Fund securities class suit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.
On February 14, 2024, a putative securities class action captioned
Chicago & Vicinity Laborers' District Council Pension Fund v.
Amplitude, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00898 (the "Class
Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer as
defendants.
The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of all those who
purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between September
21, 2021 and February 16, 2022.
The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly
false or misleading statements related to the Company's business
and financial outlook.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Amplitude is a technology
company that helps businesses analyze data for their digital
products and track customer interactions. [BN]
ANCESTRY.COM LLC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Wilson
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN WILSON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. ANCESTRY.COM LLC, et
al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00861-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Edmund Sargus, Jr. entered an order:
-- granting Ancestry's Motion for Summary Judgment,
-- denying as moot Wilson's Motion for Class Certification, and
-- denying as moot Ancestry's Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's
Expert.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and terminate this case.
In light of the above, Ancestry is entitled to summary judgment.
The undisputed facts before the Court establish that the Pop-Up
with Wilson’s likeness never existed, so the underlying alleged
commercial use and misappropriation never occurred.
Both are bars to Wilson’s claim. Wilson suffered no Article III
injury because his persona was not used to promote paid
subscriptions. Similarly, Wilson has failed to establish elements
of his claims because his persona was not misappropriated or used
for a commercial purpose.
Whether this Court considers the lack of commercial use a failure
to demonstrate concrete injury for Article III standing, or as
failure to provide evidence for an element of Wilson’s claims,
the result is the same: Ancestry is entitled to summary judgment.
Because the Court finds that Wilson lacks standing and does not
establish elements of his claims, the Court need not address
Ancestry’s other arguments for summary judgment.
Mr. Wilson alleged that Ancestry used three advertising techniques,
without his consent, to encourage viewers to subscribe to
Ancestry's online website database of personal records.
Ancestry.com is a subscription-based genealogical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vRzisb at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANTHROPIC PBC: Court Enters Order on Settlement in Graeber
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA BARTZ, CHARLES
GRAEBER, and KIRK WALLACE JOHNSON, v. ANTHROPIC PBC, Case No.
3:24-cv-05417-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered
an order on putative class actions and factors to be evaluated for
any proposed class settlement and protocol for interviewing
putative class members.
-- Claim Procedure
A settlement that imposes a claim procedure rather than simply
cutting checks to class members for the appropriate amount may
impose too much of a burden on class members, especially if the
claim procedure is onerous, or the period for submitting is too
short, United States District Court Northern District of
California or there is a likelihood of class members treating
the
notice envelope as junk mail.
-- Attorney's Fees
To avoid collusive settlements, all settlements should avoid
any
agreement as to attorney's fees and leave that to the judge. In
a
common fund cases, the judge will decide how much will go to
the
class and how much will go to counsel. A settlement whereby the
attorney seems likely to obtain funds out of proportion to the
benefit conferred on the class must be justified.
-- Incentive Payment
If the proposed class settlement by itself is not good enough
for
the named plaintiff, why should it be good enough for absent
class
members similarly situated? Class litigation proceeded well for
many decades before the advent of requests for "incentive
payments," which sometimes are simply ways to make a collusive
or
poor settlement palatable to the named plaintiff.
-- Timing Of Proposed Settlement
Absent class members are better served, the Court has learned
from
experience, when class counsel postpones settlement
negotiations
until after a ruling of a class certification.
Anthropic is an AI safety and research company based in San
Francisco.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1MFJMN at no extra
charge.[CC]
APOLLO GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Stockholder Deal-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management 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 stockholder agreement class
suit.
On March 14, 2024, a purported stockholder of AGM filed a class
action complaint against AGM.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain provisions
of the stockholders agreement, entered into on January 1, 2022
between AGM and the Former Managing Partners, violate Delaware law.
Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.
On July 11, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss.
No reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at
this time.
Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered
in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
APOLLO GLOBAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management 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 Court
dismissed a putative class action complaint filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada against PlayAGS
Inc. ("PlayAGS"), all of the members of PlayAGS's board of
directors (including three directors who are affiliated with
Apollo), certain underwriters of PlayAGS (including Apollo Global
Securities, LLC), as well as AAM, Apollo Investment Fund VIII,
L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC
(these last four parties, together, the "Apollo Defendants"). The
plaintiffs have since filed an appeal over the dismissal.
On August 4, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against
PlayAGS Inc. ("PlayAGS"), all of the members of PlayAGS's board of
directors (including three directors who are affiliated with
Apollo), certain underwriters of PlayAGS (including Apollo Global
Securities, LLC), as well as AAM, Apollo Investment Fund VIII,
L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC
(these last four parties, together, the "Apollo Defendants").
The complaint asserted claims against all defendants arising under
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with certain secondary
offerings of PlayAGS stock conducted in August 2018 and March 2019,
alleging that the registration statements issued in connection with
those offerings did not fully disclose certain business challenges
facing PlayAGS.
The complaint further asserted a control person claim under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Apollo Defendants and the
director defendants (including the directors affiliated with
Apollo), alleging such defendants were responsible for certain
misstatements and omissions by PlayAGS about its business.
On December 2, 2022, the Court dismissed all claims against the
underwriters (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC) and the
Apollo Defendants, but allowed a claim against PlayAGS and two of
PlayAGS's executives to proceed.
On February 13, 2024, the Court dismissed the entire case against
all defendants, with prejudice, and instructed the clerk of the
court to close the case.
On March 14, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs
filed their opening brief on May 3, 2024 and responsive briefs were
filed on July 26, 2024.
Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.
No reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at
this time.
Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
APPLE INC: Andino Bid for Protective Order Tossed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ANDINO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a
California Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01628-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Allison Claire entered an order that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied;
2. Plaintiff's motion for a protective order is denied; and
3. A discovery management conference is set before the
undersigned
on Oct. 2, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. The hearing will be held via
Zoom.
Please contact the Courtroom Deputy Jonathan Anderson by
email
at janderson@caed.uscourts.gov one day prior to the scheduled
hearing to receive the Zoom information. Optional
supplemental
statements regarding discovery management may be filed by the
parties separately no later than Sept. 25, 2024; any such
statement may not exceed 5 pages.
The court agrees with Apple that at this juncture, a broad, open
ended search of multiple platforms and personal devices is not
proportionate to the needs of the case, particularly where the
plaintiff cannot articulate any specific need for the additional
discovery or narrow down the proposed search in any way.
Again, the court will not issue advisory opinions on discovery
disputes that may or may not ever arise. The motion is premature
and must be denied.
This case is a putative class action in which plaintiff alleges
that defendant Apple misled reasonable consumers into paying more
than they otherwise would have by misrepresenting that they were
buying ownership of "Digital Content" at the point of purchase
when, in truth, they were essentially getting a lease.
Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AIAMn1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ARCHER AVIATION: Continues to Defend Fiduciary Duties Breach Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Aviation 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 Delaware breach of fiduciary duties class
suits in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
On May 17, 2024, two putative stockholders of the Company (and
formerly, Atlas Crest Investment Corp. ("Atlas")) filed a class
action lawsuit, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly-situated stockholders, in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against the directors and officers of Atlas, the Company, the
Company's co-founders, Moelis & Company Group LP and Moelis &
Company LLC.
The complaint asserts claims against the defendants for breaches of
fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties,
and unjust enrichment, in connection with the merger between Atlas
and the Company.
The plaintiffs request damages in an amount to be determined at
trial, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees.
Relatedly, on June 19, 2024, another putative stockholder of the
Company filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of himself and
other similarly-situated stockholders, in the Delaware Court of
Chancery asserting similar claims as the aforementioned May 17,
2024 complaint against the same defendants named in that May
complaint.
The Company anticipates that these related class actions in the
Delaware Court of Chancery will be consolidated into a single
consolidated class action.
Archer Aviation is a publicly traded company headquartered in San
Jose, California, which is developing eVTOL aircraft.[BN]
ARGO GROUP: Continues to Defend Police & Fire Retirement Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International 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 9, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Police & Fire
Retirement System City of Detroit securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
The Police & Fire Retirement System City of Detroit v. Argo Group
International Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 22-cv-8971 (S.D.N.Y.)
On October 20, 2022, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers, alleging securities fraud violations under sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiff alleges that from February 13, 2018 through August 9,
2022, the defendants made false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's reserves and underwriting standards.
On January 18, 2023, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted
the Police and Fire Retirement System City of Detroit and the
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System's joint motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff.
On March 27, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint.
On May 26, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended class
action complaint.
On July 13, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to such
motion, after which defendants filed a reply on August 14, 2023.
Argo Group is an underwriter of specialty insurance products in the
property and casualty market.
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Ruling on Plymouth Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Array Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 13, 2024, that the Plymouth class
suit decision is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
On May 14, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 ("Plymouth Action").
The complaint alleges misstatements and/or omissions in the
Company's registration statements and prospectuses related to the
Company's October 2020 initial public offering ("IPO"), the
Company's December 2020 offering, and the Company's March 2021
offering during the putative class period of October 14, 2020
through May 11, 2021.
A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on December
7, 2021, with additional allegations regarding misstatements and/or
omissions in: (1) in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K and
associated press release announcing results for the fourth quarter
and full fiscal year 2020; and (2) in the Company’s November 5,
2020, and March 9, 2021, earnings calls.
On June 30, 2021, a substantially similar second putative class
action was filed in the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 ("Keippel Action"), which was
consolidated with the Plymouth Action.
All Defendants in the Plymouth Action, including the Company, moved
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
On May 19, 2023, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
and, on July 5, 2023, denied a request from the Plymouth Action
plaintiffs for leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint
and dismissed the Plymouth Action in its entirety with prejudice.
On August 4, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
the Court's dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
After full briefing, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on
June 26, 2024 and the case is pending decision by the Court.
Array Technologies, Inc. is headquartered in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, and manufactures and supplies solar tracking systems and
related products for customers across the United States and
internationally. The company, through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
ATI Investment Sub, Inc., owns subsidiaries through which it
conducts substantially all operations.
ARROW FINANCIAL: Agreement in Principle in Ashe Suit for Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arrow Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 13, 2024, that the Ashe class suit
agreement in principle is subject to the approval of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
On June 23, 2023, Robert C. Ashe filed a putative class action
complaint (the "Ashe Lawsuit") against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
In addition to the Company, the complaint names as defendants
Thomas J. Murphy, the Company's former CEO and from September 30,
2022 to February 20, 2023, its interim CFO, Edward J. Campanella,
the Company's former CFO, and Penko Ivanov, the Company's current
CFO ("Individual Defendants" and, together with the Company, the
"Defendants").
The complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations
and compliance policies in the Company's public filings between
March 12, 2022 and May 12, 2023.
The complaint further alleges that the Individual Defendants are
liable for these materially false and misleading statements as
"controlling persons" of the Company.
Based on these allegations, the complaint brings two claims for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Mr. Ashe, on behalf of a purported class of shareholders, seeks
compensatory damages as well as recovery of the costs and fees
associated with the litigation.
On December 5, 2023, Mr. Ashe filed an amended complaint that
changed the putative class period to the period from August 5, 2022
through May 12, 2023, but challenged substantially the same
statements on the same basis.
On February 9, 2024, the Company moved to dismiss the action in its
entirety.
On April 22, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the matter, subject to final documentation and court
approval.
Management believes that the terms of the proposed settlement will
not have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial
results.
In the event that the parties are not able to finalize a
settlement, the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend
against the claims asserted in the Ashe Lawsuit.
Arrow Financial Corporation is a bank holding company that
provides commercial and consumer banking, as well as financial
products and services.[BN]
ASTROPHYSICS INC: Faces Ortiz Class Action Suit in Cal. Super Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case Rossyo Ortiz, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Astrophysics, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Lee Hecht Harrison, LLC a Delaware limited liability company, and
Mark Zayek, an individual, Case No. 24STCV16300, was removed from
the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division, on Aug. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06678-CBM-BFM to
the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.
Astrophysics Inc. manufactures security x-ray scanners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D Klein, Esq.
Wesley Gonzales, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Peter J. Woo, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS PC
200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone:(949) 885-1360
Facsimile: (949) 885-1380
E-mail: peter.woo@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Joseph Felix C. Desiderio, Esq.
Sherry S Hamilton, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 885-1360
E-mail: joseph.desiderio@jacksonlewis.com
Sherry.Hamilton@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Patrick J. Cain, Esq.
Theodore Hyun Dokko, Esq.
SMITH GAMBRELL AND RUSSELL LLP
444 South Flower Street Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2901
Telephone: (213) 358-7213
Facsimile: (213) 358-7313
E-mail: pcain@sgrlaw.com
tdokko@sgrlaw.com
AVFUEL CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Clark Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS DWIGHT CLARK III, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVFUEL CORPORATION, Case No.
5:24-cv-12274-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich., Aug. 30, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on
cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents,
contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the
PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security
safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's personally
identifiable information (PII) -- rendering them easy targets for
cybercriminals, thus cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's
systems because.
On Jan. 24, 2024, Avfuel became aware that it had lost control over
its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information
stored on the computer network in a data breach by cybercriminals
("Data Breach"). The Data Breach has impacted current and former
employees of Avfuel. Avfuel is a "leading independent global
supplier of aviation fuel and services" headquartered in Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Avfuel has a global network of more than 3,500 locations worldwide
and more than 675 Avfuel-branded Fixed Base Operators throughout
North America and Europe. Due to Defendant's intentionally
obfuscating language, it is unclear when the Data Breach precisely
occurred and how long cybercriminals had unfettered access to
Plaintiff’s and the Class’s highly sensitive information.
However, the breach took place prior to Jan. 24, 2024. The
Defendant did not discover the breach until January 24, 2024.
Following an internal investigation, the Defendant learned
cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to current and former
employees' PII, including but not limited to their name, Social
Security number, and driver's license information.
On Aug. 23, 2024 -- seven months after the Data Breach was
discovered– Defendant finally began notifying Plaintiff and Class
Members about the Data Breach, the suit alleges.
Avfuel is a global supplier of aviation fuel and services,
providing devices to a variety of customers including "airlines,
freight and cargo companies, corporate flight departments, airports
and municipalities, fixed-base operators (FBOs), crop dusters,
helicopters, and the military."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David H. Fink, Esq.
Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
FINK BRESSACK
38500 Woodward Ave, Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 971-2500
E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com
nfink@finkbressack.com
- and -
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com
AXT INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
AXT 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 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from a shareholder class suit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On May 6, 2024, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or acquired its
publicly traded securities, against the Company, Morris S. Young,
our Chief Executive Officer, and Gary L. Fischer, its Chief
Financial Officer.
The complaint asserts a putative class period from March 24, 2021
and April 3, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint asserts that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements about its business and financial
condition in certain filings made with the SEC during the Class
Period, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the defendants, and seeks
unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.
The Court has ordered the case to be transferred to the Northern
District of California, where our headquarters is located.
It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the final
outcome of this litigation or reasonably to estimate the possible
loss or range of loss with respect to this litigation.
Management believes these claims to be meritless and intends to
vigorously defend against them.
AXT, Inc. -- http://www.axt.com/-- designs, develops,
manufactures, and distributes compound and single element
semiconductor substrates.[BN]
BACKYARD PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Shed Builder's OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and the putative Collective
and Class Members v. BACKYARD PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-05963
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2024) is a class and collective action lawsuit
against Backyard Products LLC to challenge its policy and practice
of unlawfully misclassifying their Installers as independent
contractors exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and California wage and hour laws.
The suit contends that the Defendant misclassifies their Installers
as "independent contractors" instead of "employees." By
misclassifying the Installers as independent contractors, Defendant
evades its obligation to pay these Installers the full wages and
employment benefits they are due under applicable law. The
Defendant also unlawfully sidesteps payroll and other taxes that
are the responsibility of an employer, depriving government coffers
of needed revenue and harming the public.
Furthermore, the Defendant also uses the independent contractor
designation to unlawfully and unfairly off-load their own business
costs and risks onto the workers. The workers, in turn, often do
not have the resources to absorb these kinds of costs and risks
without incurring significant and even debilitating debt, says the
suit.
The Plaintiffs seek full compensation on behalf of himself and
putative Collective and Class Members for all unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime, noncompliant meal and rest periods, waiting time
penalties, and premium pay. The Plaintiffs also seek declaratory
and injunctive relief, including restitution.
Finally, the Plaintiffs seek reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under the FLSA, and California laws. The Plaintiffs seek damages in
an amount that exceeds $75,000.00.
Mr. Hernandez was employed by the Defendant as a Shed Builder from
February 2024 to July 2024.
Backyard operates a woodshed manufacturing and delivery
service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Can File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE TRISTAN, AVANTIKA
AHUJA, and PHILLIP MYERS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and EARLY WARNING
SERVICES, LLC D/B/A ZELLEPAY.COM, Case No. 8:22-cv-01183-DOC-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order granting
Bank of America, N.A's application for leave to file certain
documents under seal in support of its opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification under Local Rule 79-5.2.2, in its
entirety.
Bank of America shall file the following documents under seal or
partial seal, as appropriate:
Document to be Sealed Portion to Seal
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion Partial Seal
for Class Certification
Exhibit 1 to Levine Decl. ISO Partial Seal
Application to Seal
Exhibit 6 to Levine Decl. ISO Partial Seal
Application to Seal
Exhibit 7 to Levine Decl. ISO Entire Document
Application to Seal
Exhibit 8 to Levine Decl. ISO Partial Seal
Application to Seal
Exhibit 10 to Levine Decl. ISO Entire Document
Application to Seal
Exhibit 11 to Levine Decl. ISO Entire Document
Application to Seal
Exhibit 12 to Levine Decl. ISO Entire Document
Application to Seal
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8UollL at no extra
charge.[CC]
BARILLA AMERICA: Loses Bid to Reconsider May 28, 2024 Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW SINATRO, et al.,
v. BARILLA AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-03460-DMR (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Donna Ryu entered an order denying Barilla's motion
for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the May 28, 2024
order.
Barilla's motion lacks merit. Barilla has not identified a manifest
failure by the court to consider dispositive legal arguments,
namely because its argument regarding the significance of McGinity
was confined to a single footnote in its 25-page opposition.
Barilla cannot use a motion for reconsideration to get a "second
bite" at something it could and should have put before the court in
the first instance. Given Barilla's failure to show "[a] manifest
failure by the Court to consider dispositive legal arguments which
were presented to the Court before" the May 28, 2024 order, the
motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is denied.
The Plaintiffs Matthew Sinatro and Jessica Prost filed this
putative class action against Barilla alleging false, misleading,
and deceptive marketing practices with respect to the labeling of
Barilla-brand pastas.
The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on May
28, 2024.
The court certified the following class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3):
"All residents of California who, within four years prior to
the
filing of this Complaint, purchased the Products, containing
the
Challenged Representation on the Products' front packaging,
for
purposes other than resale."
Barilla is an Italian family-owned food company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lru6Qs at no extra
charge.[CC]
BH MANAGEMENT: Parties Seek Extension of Dispositive Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS CHIODINI, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BH
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00147-CEM-DCI (M.D.
Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the
dispositive motion deadline to 90 days after the Court rules on
Plaintiff's motion to certify class and extending the deadline for
the Defendant to respond to the Motion to Certify Class through
Sept. 6, 2024.
The Parties have discussed the relief sought in this motion and
they agree with all of the relief sought,
This is a purported class action by tenants seeking to recover
security deposits allegedly retained by the Defendant in
violation of the Florida Residential Landlord Tenant Act.
BH is a commercial real estate company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oOfxRg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
E-mail: jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
plevinson@vandwlaw.com
cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Frank A. Zacherl, Esq.
Oliver Sepulveda, Esq.
SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Ste. 4100
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-6300
Facsimile: (305) 381-9982
E-mail: FZacherl@shutts.com
OSepulveda@shutts.com
LMarchante@shutts.com
BODYCOTE THERMAL: Class Action Settlement in Cruz Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cruz Perez Jr., v.
Bodycote Thermal Processing, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-00145-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rozella Oliver
entered an order granting motion for final approval of class action
and PAGA settlement and granting-in-part motion for class counsel
award and class representative enhancement payment.
Plaintiff's motion for fees is granted-in-part as set forth above.
A judgment shall issue concurrently.
This is a putative wage and hour class action brought by Plaintiff
Cruz Perez Jr. against Defendant Bodycote Thermal Processing, Inc.
The case settled in mediation, and the parties filed a notice of
settlement on July 26, 2023. On February 21, 2024, the Court
preliminarily approved the class action settlement.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendant
for violations of California Labor Code sections 518 and 1198 for
unpaid overtime, California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512(a)
for unpaid meal period premiums, California Labor Code section
226.7 for unpaid rest period premiums, California Labor Code
sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 for unpaid minimum wages,
California Labor Code sections 201 and 202 for final wages not
timely paid,
The California Class is defined as
"all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who
worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time
during the California Class Period, whether employed directly
by
the Defendant or indirectly through Temporary Staffing
Agencies."
The FCRA Class is defined as:
"Plaintiff and individuals in the United States who applied for
employment with Defendant and with respect to whom the
Defendant
procured a background check during the FCRA Class Period."
The FCRA Class Period is defined as the period from Nov. 17, 2019
through Aug. 31, 2020.
The PAGA Group is defined as:
"all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who
worked for the Defendant in California at any time during the
PAGA
Period, whether employed directly by Defendant or indirectly
through Temporary Staffing Agencies.
The PAGA Period is defined as the period from April 4, 2020 through
the earlier date of: (a) the date the Court grants preliminary
approval; or (b) the date the Qualifying Threshold is met, if
applicable, pursuant to the Escalator Clause.
Defendant agrees to pay a non-reversionary gross settlement amount
of $1,850,000. Settlement Agreement at 20. $277,500 will be
allocated to settlement of the PAGA claim, with $208,125 (75%) to
be sent to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and
the remaining $69,375 to be allocated among the PAGA Group Members
on a pro rata basis based on the number of compensable pay periods.
$11,660 will be allocated on a per capita basis among the
Settlement FCRA Class Members.
Bodycote is a provider of heat treatment and thermal processing
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qvmcXS at no extra
charge.[CC]
BOZZUTO'S INC: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONRUDY LOISEAU, QUINTON
L. HEBRON and DWAYNE SMALL, individually and, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. BOZZUTO'S INC., JAMES JONES, CHUCK
CERRETA and JOEL SANTIAGO, Case No. 3:22-cv-01485-JCH (D. Conn.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
-- granting an extension of time of seven days—until Sept. 12,
2024—
to file a reply brief in support of their Motion for Class
Certification; and
-- permitting them to file a reply brief of up to fifteen pages.
Dr. Lang's rebuttal report will need to be completed in advance of
the filing of Plaintiffs’ class certification reply brief so that
Plaintiffs can adequately respond to the arguments made by
Bozzuto’s in opposing class certification. Plaintiffs therefore
respectfully request that their reply brief deadline be extended by
seven days, from August 5 to August 12, 2024 (the current deadline
for Plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert report), given that the current
deadline cannot be met despite the diligence of Plaintiffs.
Bozzuto's wholesales dry groceries, dairy and delicatessan items,
meat, poultry, seafood, produce, and non-food items.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YccK1Y at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq.
Lindsey Grunert, Esq.
KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
1918 New Hampshire Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 471-1995
Facsimile: (202) 280-1128
E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com
lgrunert@kotchen.com
- and -
Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC
100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3007
Telephone: (860) 249-7180
Facsimile: (860) 408-1471
E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com
BRAINSTORM CELL: Reply in Support of Bid to Dismiss Due Sept. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics 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 14, 2024, that the
defendants has until September 13, 2024 to submit their reply in
support of their motion to dismiss the Sporn securities class
suit.
On November 1, 2023, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative securities class action complaint against the Company and
certain of its officers, captioned Sporn v. Brainstorm Cell
Therapeutics Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09630 (the "Securities
Complaint"), in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "Securities Action").
The Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 1, 2024; the
Amended Complaint adds a former officer as an individual defendant.
The Amended Complaint in the Securities Action alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all
defendants and control person violations of Section 20(a) against
the individual defendants, relating to NurOwn for the treatment of
ALS, the Company's submissions to and communications with the FDA
in support of the approval of NurOwn for the treatment of ALS, and
the prospects of future approval of NurOwn by the FDA.
The Securities Action seeks, among other things, damages in
connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between February
18, 2020 and September 27, 2023, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Company and individual defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on May 31, 2024; plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss
on July 31, 2024; and the Company and individual defendants'
deadline to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss is
September 13, 2024.
Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics, Inc., operates as a biotechnology
company, which develops innovative adult stem cell therapeutic
products. It currently focuses on utilizing the patients own bone
marrow stem cells to generate neuron-like cells that may provide an
effective treatment initially for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,
Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury. The
company was founded on September 22, 2000 and is headquartered in
New York, NY.
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Kennedy Class Suit in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend Kennedy class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The case is captioned Kennedy v. Progress Software Corporation, et
al. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, filed October
3, 2023).
The action relates to a data security incident at an alleged
third-party vendor, PBI Research Services ("PBI"), and allegedly
involves the MOVEit file transfer system that PBI uses in its
provision of services ("MOVEit Incident").
As it relates to BHF, plaintiff seeks to certify a subclass of
persons whose private information was allegedly maintained by BHF
and accessed or acquired in connection with the MOVEit Incident.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that BHF negligently chose
to utilize PBI to store and transfer plaintiff's and purported
class members' private information despite PBI's use of the MOVEit
software which plaintiff contends contained security
vulnerabilities.
The complaint asserts claims against BHF for negligence, negligence
per se, and unjust enrichment, and plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees and prejudgment
interest.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Brighthouse Holdings, LLC and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. It offers a range of annuity and
life insurance products to individuals.
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit in Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Martin class suit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division.
The case is captioned Lawrence Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance
Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, filed
April 6, 2021).
Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company.
Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued
by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of similarly situated owners of
universal life insurance policies issued or administered by
defendants and alleges that cost of insurance charges were based on
improper factors and should have decreased over time due to
improving mortality but did not.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages, attorney's fees,
interest, and equitable relief including a constructive trust.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in
June 2021, which was denied in February 2022.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company of NY, a subsidiary of
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. was initially named as a
defendant when the lawsuit was filed, but was dismissed as a
defendant, without prejudice, in April 2022.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Brighthouse Holdings, LLC and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. It offers a range of annuity and
life insurance products to individuals.
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit in Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Newton class suit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division.
The case is captioned Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, filed May 8, 2020).
Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Brighthouse
Financial, Inc.
Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued
by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all persons who own or owned
life insurance policies issued where the terms of the life
insurance policy provide or provided, among other things, a
guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be increased
by more than a specified percentage in any contract year.
Plaintiff also alleges that cost of insurance charges were based on
improper factors and should have decreased over time due to
improving mortality but did not.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of
the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages,
interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and
declaratory relief.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in
June 2020, which was granted in part and denied in part in March
2021.
Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint.
On January 18, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion on consent to amend
the second amended class action complaint to narrow the scope of
the class sought to those persons who own or owned life insurance
policies issued in Georgia.
The motion was granted on January 23, 2023, and the third amended
class action complaint was filed on January 23, 2023.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Brighthouse Holdings, LLC and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. It offers a range of annuity and
life insurance products to individuals.
BRONX COMMUNITY: Parties in Crawford Must Confer Class Cert Sched
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAREN CRAWFORD, v. BRONX
COMMUNITY COLLEGE, PURYSABEL UREGAR, ALAN FUENTES, and MARTA CLARK,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01062-PGG-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah
Cave entered an order that:
-- The parties promptly meet and confer pursuant to Federal Rule
of
Civil Procedure 26(f) and, by Sept. 23, 2024, file a Report of
Rule 26(f) Meeting and Proposed Case Management Plan For Pro Se
Case, via ECF, in conformance with the procedures in Section 1
of
Judge Cave’s Individual Practices.
The Plaintiff is advised that all letters and other communications
with the Court from pro se parties must be submitted to the Pro Se
Intake Unit, not directly to Chambers.
The Plaintiff is further advised that she may choose to receive by
email, instead of regular mail, documents filed in this case. If
plaintiff wishes to receive case information by email, plaintiff
must follow the instructions on the Consent and Registration Form,
available on the website of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York,
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/node/845.
The Court also notes that there is a legal clinic in the Southern
District of New York to assist parties in civil cases who do not
have lawyers. The Clinic is run by a private organization called
the New York Legal Assistance Group; it is not part of or run by
the Court and it cannot accept filings on behalf of the Court. The
Clinic is located at the Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007, which is
just inside the Pearl Street entrance to the Courthouse.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to
Plaintiff
Bronx Community College is a public community college in the Bronx,
New York City.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=08wUeP at no extra
charge.[CC]
BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: Camden Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA CAMDEN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BUCKNELL
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 4:23-cv-01907-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23:
(1) Preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement on behalf of
the Settlement Class Members according to the terms of the
Stipulation of Settlement;
(2) Provisionally certifying, for purposes of the Settlement
only,
the following Settlement Class:
"All enrolled students at Bucknell during the Spring 2020
semester who paid any Tuition and/or Fees, or who were
credited
with having paid the same and who were registered for at
least
one in-person class during the Spring 2020 semester.
(3) Preliminarily appointing Named Plaintiff Samantha Camden as
Settlement Class Representative;
(4) Preliminarily appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch
Carpenter, LLP and Anthony M. Alesandro of Leeds Brown Law,
P.C. as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement
Class
and the Settlement Class Representative with respect to the
Settlement;
(5) Approving the Parties" proposed settlement procedure,
including
approving the Parties' selection of A.B. Data, Ltd. as
Settlement Administrator and approving the Parties' proposed
schedule;
(6) Entering the proposed Order Preliminarily Approving the
Proposed Settlement and Provisionally Certifying the
Proposed
Settlement Class, attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement
Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration
of
Nicholas A. Colella; and
(7) Granting such other and further relief as may be just and
appropriate.
Bucknell University is a private liberal-arts college in Lewisburg,
Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6JVCfl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: NickC@lcllp.com
- and -
Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
BUMBLE INC: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for Oct. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bumble 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 has reached a
proposed class action settlement in several lawsuits which have
been consolidated. The settlement was preliminarily approved on
June 6, 2024, and the Court has set a final approval hearing for
October 23, 2024.
In late 2021 and early 2022, four putative class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company alleging that certain features of
the Badoo or Bumble apps violate the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA).
Each of these lawsuits allege that the apps used facial geometry
scans in violation of BIPA's authorization, consent, and data
retention policy provisions.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek statutory damages, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, and (in one action)
punitive damages.
The parties reached a proposed class action settlement in these
lawsuits, which were consolidated on May 30, 2024.
Bumble's main operations are providing online dating and social
networking applications through subscription and in-app purchases
of products servicing North America, Europe and various other
countries around the world. Bumble Inc. provides these services
through websites and applications that it owns and operates.
CACI INTERNATIONAL: Kuentz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Emilia Kuentz and Thomas Carpenter, individually and on behalf of
the members of the proposed class and collective, v. CACI
International, Inc., CACI, Inc., CACI, LLC and ABC Companies 1-25,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02496 (D.D.C., Aug. 29, 2024) seeks any and all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, District of
Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law and Washington DC Minimum
Wage Act.
During the relevant period, the Defendants had uniform policies and
practices underpaying the Plaintiffs and the proposed class and
collective members in the District of Columbia by failing to pay
all wages promised, owed, and/or earned due under District of
Columbia law, and unlawfully failing to pay all overtime promised,
owed, and/or earned due under the DCMWA and the FLSA.
The Defendants have contracted with the Department of Justice,
other federal agencies, and/or other government entities during the
relevant period to provide services to and for the Department of
Justice, other federal agencies, and/or other government entities
in the District of Columbia or subject to the laws of the District
of Columbia, including, but not limited to, information technology
and automated litigation support services.
The Defendants are joint employers and/or a single integrated
enterprise that "delivers distinctive expertise and differentiated
technology to U.S. government customers in support of critical
national security missions."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael K. Amster, Esq.
Thomas J. Eiler, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com
teiler@zagfirm.com
CAMBIUM NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Hamby Shareholder Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambium Networks 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 9, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Hamby shareholder class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
On May 22, 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois (Hamby v. Cambium Networks Corporation et al, Case No.
1:24-cv-04240) against the Company and three of its current or
former officers.
The complaint purports to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, on behalf of persons and entities who acquired our
ordinary shares between May 8, 2023 and January 18, 2024, or the
Class Period.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the Company
and certain of its executive officers made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its
business, operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b)
(and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. This
litigation is in its early stages and the Company cannot currently
estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, that it may
experience in connection with this claim.
Headquartered in Rolling Meadows, IL, Cambium engages in the
design, development, and manufacture of wireless broadband and
Wi-Fi networking infrastructure solutions. The company's ordinary
shares trade on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol "CMBM." [BN]
CERENCE INC: Continues to Defend Pena Class Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Cerence 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 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Pena class suit in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division.
On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs A.P., a minor, by and through her
guardian, Carlos Pena, and Carlos Pena, each individually and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
Chancery Division (Case. No. 2023CH02866 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.
2023)).
The case was removed to Federal Court (Case No. 1:23CV2667 (N.D.
Ill.)), and then severed and remanded back in part, so there are
two pending cases.
Plaintiffs subsequently amended the federal complaint twice, with
the latest second amended complaint, filed on July 13, 2023, adding
plaintiffs Randolph Freshour and Vincenzo Allan, each also filing
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals.
Plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. through
Cerence's Drive Platform technology, which is integrated in various
automobiles.
The named plaintiffs allegedly drove or rode in a vehicle with
Cerence's Drive Platform technology. Across both cases, plaintiffs
allege that Cerence violated: (1) BIPA Section 15(a) by possessing
biometrics without any public written policy for their retention or
destruction; (2) BIPA Section 15(b) by collecting, capturing, or
obtaining biometrics without written notice or consent; (3) BIPA
Section 15(c) by profiting from biometrics obtained from Plaintiffs
and putative class members; and (4) BIPA Section 15(d) by
disclosing biometrics to third party companies without consent.
Cerence has filed motions to dismiss both cases.
On February 27, 2024, the Circuit Court issued an order denying
Cerence's motion to dismiss.
On April 16, 2024, Cerence filed its answer and affirmative
defenses, a motion to certify the Court's order on Cerence's motion
to dismiss, and a motion to stay.
Thereafter, in exchange for Cerence withdrawing its motions to
certify and stay, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in both the
Circuit Court and Federal Court. Cerence's answers in the Federal
Court and Circuit Court are due on July 15 and July 18, 2024,
respectively, which the Company filed on such dates.
Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful
and/or reckless violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of
$1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA.
Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the
case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other
things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company
cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that
may result from this action.
Cerence Inc. is a global provider of AI-powered assistants and
innovations for connected and autonomous vehicles.
CERENCE INC: Continues to Securities Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
Cerence 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 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the City of Miami Fire Fighters' securities class suit
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
On February 25, 2022, a purported shareholder class action
captioned as City Of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers'
Retirement Trust v. Cerence Inc., et al. (the "Securities Action")
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming the Company and two of its former officers as
defendants.
Following the court's selection of a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, an amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2022.
The plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased
the Company's common stock between November 16, 2020 and February
4, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact regarding the Company's
operations, financial performance and prospects were made in the
Company's public disclosures during the period from November 16,
2020 to February 4, 2022, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees.
On September 9, 2022, the defendants in the Securities Action moved
to dismiss the action in its entirety.
On March 25, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss, dismissing certain of the alleged
misrepresentations and omissions while allowing claims challenging
certain other alleged misrepresentations and omissions to proceed.
On April 15, 2024, the defendants filed their answer to the amended
complaint.
The case is currently in discovery, with trial scheduled to
commence on January 12, 2026.
The Company intends to defend the claims vigorously.
Cerence Inc. is a global provider of AI-powered assistants and
innovations for connected and autonomous vehicles.
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Loughran Class Suit Over Cash Sweep Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY LOUGHRAN, ROSEMARY ORLANDO, and EDWARD CARR, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CHARLES SCHWAB
CORPORATION and CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Case No. e
2:24-cv-07344 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 28, 2024) arises out of a cash sweep
program implemented by the Defendants whereby, acting as its
customers' agent and fiduciary, CS&Co automatically "sweeps"
uninvested cash balances in its customers' accounts and deposits
that cash into deposit accounts at one of its Affiliated Banks, and
starting in 2022 two additional banks presumably as a result of
Defendants' acquisition of TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation in
2020.
The Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class were at all
relevant times customers of Defendants, a diversified financial
services firm, whose cash held in its customers' brokerage accounts
was subject to Defendants' bank sweep program.
The Defendants implemented the Program ostensibly to offer CS&Co's
customers an interest paying vehicle to hold cash that offers FDIC
insurance on those cash deposits, but in fact, Defendants designed
and operated the Program to obtain outsized benefits for themselves
from its customers' cash.
Plaintiff Loughran was at all relevant times a customer of
Defendants and is a resident and citizen of the State of Colorado.
She maintained an account with CS&Co in which cash was held over
the course of the life of the account.
Charles Schwab is a financial services firm based in the U.S. with
operations worldwide. Charles Schwab is a holding company that
conducts business through its subsidiaries including Defendant
CS&Co, and non-party Charles Schwab Bank.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sophia M. Rios, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 489-0300
E-mail: srios@bm.net
CINTAS CORPORATION: Court Certifies Nationwide Class in Hawkins
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND HAWKINS, et al.,
v. CINTAS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01062-JPH (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Jeffery Hopkins entered an order:
-- certifying the nationwide class as defined in the Settlement
Agreement;
-- appointing the attorneys listed as class counsel;
-- granting Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of Class Action
Settlement, Certification of Settlement Class, and Approval of
Plan of Allocation and accepting the proposed settlement as
currently structured; and
-- denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as moot.
The Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Expense and Named Plaintiffs Case Contribution
remains under advisement.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs, through their counsel, have
adequately protected the interests of the Settlement Class. Thus,
the Court finds that all Rule 23(a) factors have been satisfied.
This case is about the alleged acts and omissions of a retirement
plan's administrators.
The Plaintiffs initiated this suit against Defendants pursuant to
sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA"), and 29 U.S.C. section 1109 and 1132, alleging
that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs in
their management of the Cintas Partners' Plan.
Cintas provides a range of products and services to businesses
including uniforms, mats, mops, cleaning and restroom supplies,
first aid and safety products, fire extinguishers and testing, and
safety courses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cIlORw at no extra
charge.[CC]
CLEAN HARBORS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Kruezell Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM KRUZELL,
individually, and as Representative of a Class of Participants and
Beneficiaries of the Clean Harbors Savings and Retirement Plan, v.
CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., et al. Case No.
1:22-cv-10524-GAO (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr.
entered an order certifying the following Settlement Class:
"All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during
the
Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person
who
participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period,
and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who
participated in the Plan at any time during the Class
Period."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the current and
former
members of the Retirement Plan Committee of Clean Harbors
during
the Class Period and Alan S. McKim and Eric W. Gerstenberg."
The Court appoints Adam Kruzell as representative for the
Settlement Class. Further, the Court appoints Walcheske & Luzi,
LLC, Jonathan Feigenbaum, Haney Law Office, P.C., as counsel for
the Settlement Class.
This litigation arose out of claims of alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
Presented to the Court for preliminary approval is a settlement of
the litigation as against all Defendants. The terms of the
Settlement are set out in a Class Action Settlement Agreement dated
June 7, 2024, executed by Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel.
Clean Harbors provides hazardous and non-hazardous material
management and disposal services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J1Z91o at no extra
charge.[CC]
CLEANSPARK INC: Discovery in Bishins Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Cleanspark 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 9, 2024, that the Bishins class suit is moving
forward in discovery.
On January 20, 2021, Scott Bishins ("Bishins"), individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated (together, the "Class"),
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer, Zachary Bradford ("Bradford"), and its
Chief Financial Officer at the time, Lori Love ("Love") (such
action, the "Class Action").
Subsequent to the filing of the Class Action, Darshan Hasthantra,
as lead Plaintiff (together with Bishins, the "Plaintiffs"), filed
an amended complaint (the "Amended Class Complaint"), which named
S. Matthew Schultz ("Schultz") as a defendant (the Company,
Bradford and Schultz, collectively, the "Defendants") and no longer
named Love as a defendant.
The Amended Class Complaint alleges that, between December 10, 2020
and August 16, 2021 (the "Class Period"), Defendants made material
misstatements and omissions regarding the Company's acquisition of
ATL and its anticipated expansion of bitcoin mining operations and
seeks: (a) certification of the Class, (b) an award of compensatory
damages to the Class, and (c) an award of reasonable costs and
expenses incurred by the Class in the litigation.
During a March 20, 2024 status conference, the judge expressed her
expectation that the parties attend mediation, accordingly.
To date, no class has been certified in the Class Action, and the
case is moving forward in discovery.
CleanSpark is a bitcoin mining company that independently owns and
operates five data centers in Georgia.
CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Burnett Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial 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 9, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Burnett class suit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.
On October 5, 2012, plaintiffs William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H.
Camp commenced an action entitled Burnett v. Conseco Life Ins. Co.
against, among others, CNO Financial Group, Inc. and CNO Services,
LLC (collectively, the "CNO Entities") in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
a putative class of former interest-sensitive whole life insurance
policyholders who surrendered their policies or let them lapse.
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint alleges that the CNO Entities
are liable under an alter ego theory for Conseco Life Insurance
Company's purported breach of the optional premium payment
provision (the "Optional Premium Payment") of plaintiffs' insurance
policies.
In January 2018, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
On August 17, 2020, the Court denied the CNO Entities' motions to
dismiss.
On January 13, 2021, the Court granted final approval of a class
action settlement between plaintiffs and co-defendant Conseco Life
Insurance Company (n/k/a Wilco Life Insurance Company).
The case remains pending against the CNO Entities.
On March 25, 2022, the Court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class of
under 2,000 policyholders who invoked the policy's Optional Premium
Payment prior to October 2008 and who surrendered their policies
between October 7, 2008 and September 1, 2011.
The Court's certification order acknowledged the existence of
individualized issues of causation and damages, which the Court
stated could be addressed in individualized proceedings following a
class trial on the alter ego allegations and the meaning of the
subject insurance policy language.
The CNO Entities continue to vigorously defend the case.
CNO Financial Group provides financial services and sells life
insurance and health insurance to individuals and third-parties.
COLORADO: Rich Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge Varholak
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN RICH v. JOHN FEYAN,
in his official capacity as
LARIMER COUNTY SHERIFF; JESSICA L. KERN, JOHN P. MARTENS, EMMAUNUEL
M. NTI, JEFFREY A. BONTRAGER, STEVE
REAMS, in his official capacity as WELD COUNTY SHERIFF, WELD
COUNTY, a political subdivision of the STATE OF COLORADO, LARIMER
COUNTY, a political subdivision of the STATE OF COLORADO, POUDRE
VALLEY
HOSPITAL, WEST PINES BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, and STATE OF COLORADO, a
sovereign state of the United States of America, and DOES 1-11,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01496 (D. Colo., Filed May 28, 2024),
the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order referring motion
to certify class for Plaintiff and Defendant Classes filed by
Jordan Rich to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
COMMUNICATION FEDERAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Hinson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LISA HINSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. COMMUNICATION FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 5:24-cv-00883-SLP
(W.D. Okla., Aug. 26, 2024) is a class action arising out of the
recent cyberattack and data breach on Defendant's network that
resulted in unauthorized access to the personally identifiable
information of its employees and customers.
The compromised information includes Plaintiff's and Class Members'
names, dates of birth, contact information, drivers' licenses
numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account information,
and credit card information, the suit claims.
On Jan. 11, 2024, the Defendant "identified suspicious activity on
[the] network" and initiated an investigation. Further
investigation determined that an unauthorized third party gained
access to the Defendant's network from Dec. 31, 2023, to January
11, 2024.
The Defendant issued a notice of data breach letter on Aug. 12,
2024, informing the Plaintiff and members of the Class that an
unknown and unauthorized user hacked into the network and acquired
PII.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and class members
suffered ascertainable loses in the form of the loss of the benefit
of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their
time reasonably expended to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack, the suit asserts.
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.
Ms. Hinson is an individual citizen of the State of Oklahoma. She
was notified of the Data Breach and her Private Information being
comprised upon receiving the Data Breach Notice Letter on Aug. 12,
2024.
The Defendant is a full-service credit union, offering a variety of
financial products and services to individuals, including checking
and savings accounts, credit and debit cards, mortgages, home
equity loans, auto loans, and digital banking.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
kpb@federmanlaw.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
COMMUNICATION FEDERAL: Fails to Secure Info, Jackson Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONOVAN JACKSON, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. COMMUNICATION FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No.
5:24-cv-00897-D (W.D. Okla., Aug. 28, 2024) is a class action suit
on behalf of the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated
against CFCU to address the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of
Class Members' Private Information that they collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and 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.
The Plaintiff seeks to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive
relief for a class of individuals who are similarly situated and
have received notices of the data breach from CFCU.
The class action arises out of CFCU's failures to properly secure,
safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff'
and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that
it had acquired and stored for its business purposes, resulting in
a 2023 data breach ("Data Breach") of documents and information
stored on the computer network of CFCU, a company that provides
banking and other financial services to people, including Plaintiff
and Class Members.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack beginning from December 2023 through January 2024 to
compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach") that contained
personally identifiable information. The Defendant launched an
investigation into the Data Breach and confirmed that an
unauthorized actor accessed its system on December 31, 2023, and
may have copied and exfiltrated certain files containing Plaintiff'
and Class Members' Private Information. Despite learning of the
Data Breach on Jan. 11, 2024, and determining that Private
Information was involved in the breach, Defendant did not begin
sending notices of the Data Breach until Aug. 12, 2024.
On its computer network, CFCU holds and stores certain highly
sensitive PII of the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who
are applicants who sought employment from CFCU or are current
or former employees of CFCU, i.e., individuals who provided their
highly sensitive and private information in exchange for
employment. CFCU was required to begin notifying victims of its
Data Breach as soon as possible, informing them that their PII had
been stolen in a data breach affecting over thousands of
individuals, says the suit.
CFCU admits that "unauthorized third party gained access to a
portion of our computer network" and that its investigation also
revealed "unauthorized access occurred from December 31, 2023, to
January 11, 2024."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 5th Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (646) 357-1732
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
COMPASS GROUP: Court Affirms Judge's Rule 11 Order in O'Brien
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER O'BRIEN, v.
COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-13327-ES-JSA
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order
-- affirming Judge Allen's Rule 11 Order, and
-- denying Defendants' request for leave to file a motion pursuant
to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 as premature.
The Court is not convinced that the Rule 11 Order was clearly
erroneous and finds that Judge Allen's Rule 11 Order should be
affirmed
The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated to recover damages for unpaid wages.
The Plaintiff initiated this action against the Compass Defendants
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, on Nov. 16,
2017.
On April 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint,
alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of implied contract,
and civil conspiracy.
Compass provides food services and support to offices, factories,
schools, universities, hospitals, correctional facilities, and
other individual locations all over the state of New Jersey and
North America.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fjrslM at no extra
charge.[CC]
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
ContextLogic 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 an initial public offering (IPO)-related suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
Beginning in May 2021, four putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers and the underwriters named in its initial public offering
("IPO") registration statement alleging violations of securities
laws based on statements made in its registration statement on Form
S-1 filed with the SEC in connection with its IPO and seeking
monetary damages.
One of these cases has since been dismissed by the plaintiff and
the remaining three have been coordinated and consolidated.
In May 2022, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, who subsequently
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint pursuant to
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.
On April 10, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and
asserted only claims made under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act.
In December 2023, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint.
In February 2024, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint, which the defendants have moved to dismiss.
The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend them.
Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in these cases,
the Company cannot estimate a range of potential losses at this
point in time.
ContextLogic Inc. is a mobile ecommerce company that connects
merchants' products to users based on user preferences.
CORNBREAD IP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Vega Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CORNBREAD IP, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-08890 (D.N.J., Aug.
30, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.cornbreadsoul.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on Jan.30, 2024 to access Defendant's Website from his
home access Defendant's Website from his home but encountered
barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's
online content and services.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to visit Cornbread Soul
restaurant. The Plaintiff's desire to visit this restaurant was due
to the fact that he enjoys visiting local restaurants that
specialize in dishes from natural, fresh ingredients.
He wanted to taste their chicken dishes and the specialty food dish
which is cornbread. Because Defendant's website,
www.cornbreadsoul.com , is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant’s website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.[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
CROCS INC: Valentine Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Reply
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA VALENTINE, RUBY
CORNEJO, and TIFFANY AVINO, as individuals, on behalf of
themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v.
CROCS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07463-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting their administrative
motion to consider whether another party's material should be
sealed for certain portions of the following documents:
-- Plaintiffs' Reply In Support of Motion for Class Certification;
-- Supporting Exhibits to the Declaration of Kali R. Backer;
-- the Reply Declaration of Colin Weir;
-- the Reply Declaration of Steven P. Gaskin;
-- the Reply Declaration of Dr. Michael Hickner;
-- the Reply Declaration of J. Michael Dennis; and
-- Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Strike Testimony of Dr.
Hickner.
These documents contain information designated as confidential or
highly confidential -- attorneys' eyes only by Defendant pursuant
to the protective order entered in this case.
Crocs is an American footwear company based in Broomfield,
Colorado, that manufactures and markets the Crocs brand of foam
footwear.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gNFEOu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kali R. Backer, Esq.
Anthony J. Patek, Esq.
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Kali R. Backer, Esq.
Patrick J. Branson, 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
anthony@gutridesafier.com
kali@gutridesafier.com
patrick@gutridesafier.com
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Shongo Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE SHONGO, et al, v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. Case No. 1:22-cv-02684-MJM (D. Md.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying the class defined as:
"All Persons either (a) residing (as their primary residence)
on
Dec. 30, 2021, or (b) owning residential real property on or
since Dec. 30, 2021, in the area identified on the "Class
Area"
map and narratively defined as follows: Beginning at the
intersection of W. Bay Ave. and E. Patapsco Ave., extending
southeast to the intersection of E. Patapsco Ave. and Curtis
Ave., then extending south along Curtis Ave. until its
intersection with railroad tracks (located at approximately
39.216431, -71.586-087), then southwest to the intersection
of
Branch Ave. and Arundel Blvd., then northwest to the
intersection of W. Bay Avenue and Church Street, then north
along W. Bay Ave. to the intersection of W. Bay Ave. and E.
Patapsco Ave., all within the City of Baltimore, Maryland."
The Class Area includes properties immediately abutting the
boundary lines described above, including, for example, on
the
north side of E. Patapsco Ave. between West Bay Ave. and
Curtis
Ave.; and
2. Granting final approval of the settlement preliminarily
approved
by this Court on May 20, 2024; and entry of final judgment
and
dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiffs' and Settlement Class
Members' claims against Released Persons (as that term is
defined in the Class Settlement Agreement and General
Release).
The expenses of administering the Settlement Agreement shall be
paid to the Settlement Administrator in the manner set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and in the amount of $38,113.00. Defendants
shall have no liability for any fees or costs incurred by the
Settlement Administrator or Settlement Class Counsel except as
specifically set out in the Settlement Agreement.
Incentive awards to the Settlement Class Representatives in the
following amount $5,000 each to the filing Plaintiffs Cheyenne
Shongo and Kennett Walker are reasonable and are approved. These
monies will be paid from the Settlement Fund in the manner set
forth in
the Settlement Agreement.
Attorneys' fees, costs and expenses for Settlement Class Counsel in
the following amount $550,000.00 in attorneys' fees and $40,789.39
in costs are reasonable and are approved. These monies will be paid
from the Settlement Fund in the manner set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.
CSX is a supplier of rail-based freight transportation in North
America.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NHKafL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Nace, Esq.
Zachary Kelsay, Esq.
NIDEL & NACE, P.L.L.C.
One Church Street, Suite 802
Rockville, MD 20850
Telephone:(202) 780-5153
E-mail: jon@nidellaw.com
zach@nidellaw.com
CYTODYN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
CytoDyn Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual
period ending May 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 15, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from a securities class suit in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington.
On March 17, 2021, a stockholder filed a putative class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington against the Company and certain former officers.
The complaint generally alleges the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the viability of leronlimab as a
potential treatment for COVID-19.
On April 9, 2021, a second stockholder filed a similar putative
class action lawsuit in the same court, which the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 23, 2021.
On August 9, 2021, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for the
March 17, 2021 lawsuit.
On December 21, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who
purchased the Company's common stock between March 27, 2020 and May
17, 2021.
The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making purportedly false or
misleading statements concerning, among other things, the safety
and efficacy of leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19,
the Company's CD10 and CD12 clinical trials, and its HIV Biologic
License Application ("BLA").
The amended complaint also alleges that the individual defendants
violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act by selling shares of the
Company's common stock purportedly while in possession of material
nonpublic information.
The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, a ruling that the
case may proceed as a class action and unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.
On February 25, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
On June 24, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged
class of those who purchased the Company's common stock between
March 27, 2020 and March 30, 2022, makes similar allegations, names
the same defendants, and asserts the same claims as the prior
complaint, adds a claim for alleged violation of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder,
and seeks the same relief as the prior complaint.
All defendants have filed motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint in whole or in part.
The Company and the individual defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend the
matter.
Since this case is in an early stage where the number of plaintiffs
is not known, and the claims do not specify an amount of damages,
the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the
lawsuit and cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range
of loss the Company may incur.
Cytodyn Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company based in
Washington.
DISPLAYMAX INC: Cox Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MINNIE DIANE COX, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DISPLAYMAX, INC., and FIXTUREMAX, INC., Case
No. 2:24-cv-12057-GAD-DRG (E.D. Mich., Aug. 7, 2024) arises from
the Defendants' failure to pay their non-exempt employees all the
wages to which they are entitled, including regular and overtime
Wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants allegedly utilized an unlawful day-rate pay scheme
and failed to properly pay their employees overtime at a rate of
time and one half times their regular rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek as required under the FLSA.
Additionally, the case is about Defendants failure to pay correct
overtime premiums by virtue of their decision to exclude certain
forms of compensation, including per diem payments, when
calculating overtime wages due. The Defendants operate a nationwide
retail support company that provides its customers with
merchandising, fixture and display installations, store remodel,
and retail construction services to a variety of retailers
nationwide, says the suit.
The Defendants operate as one entity and jointly employ
individuals, such as Plaintiff and those similarly situated, in
non-exempt positions to travel to retailers and set up store
displays and shelving for large scale retail installations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam S. Alexander, Esq.
ALEXANDER LAW FIRM
17200 W. Ten Mile, Ste. 200
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (248) 246-6353
Facsimile: (248) 746-3793
E-mail: adalesq@gmail.com
- and -
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Michael J. Anderson, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-4635
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
manderson@bm.net
- and -
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1001 G Street, NW, Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (215) 875-3063
E-mail: apiazza@bm.net
DMCG INC: Abeyta Must File Reply Brief by Sept. 20.
---------------------------------------------------
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:
-- granting Defendant's request for an extension of time until
Sept.
30. However, the Court instructs the Defendant to make a
"rolling"
production beginning Sept. 16 (as defendant previously
requested); and
-- granting the plaintiff an additional week to file the reply
brief,
so that it is now due Sept. 20.
The hearing on the motion for class certification remains on Oct. 4
at 10:00 a.m. via zoom. If defendant produces discovery relevant to
the class certification motion after the filing of the reply brief,
plaintiff's counsel may discuss that discovery at the hearing.
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. 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pi7VlE at no extra
charge.[CC]
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
On August 2, 2024, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements regarding the
Company's transformation journey.
The putative class of plaintiffs includes investors who acquired
DXC stock during the period of May 26, 2021 to May 16, 2024.
The Company believes that the lawsuit described above is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted.
DXC Technology Company is an information technology services and
consulting company based in Ashburn, Virginia.[BN]
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suit Trial Extended to February 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2024, that the trial on a
securities class suit has been extended to February 2026.
On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former
officer of the Company, among other defendants.
The action asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is premised on allegedly
false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of
material facts, regarding the Company's prospects and expected
performance.
The putative class of plaintiffs includes former shareholders of
Computer Sciences Corporation ("CSC") who exchanged their CSC
shares for the Company's common stock pursuant to the offering
documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the April 2017 transaction that formed DXC.
The State of California action had been stayed pending the outcome
of the substantially similar federal action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The federal action was dismissed with prejudice in December 2021.
Thereafter, the state court lifted the stay and entered an order
permitting additional briefing by the parties.
In March 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the
Company moved to dismiss.
In August 2022, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss,
but permitted Plaintiffs to amend and refile their complaint.
In September 2022, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Company moved to dismiss.
In January 2023, the Court issued an order denying the Company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
In March 2023, the Court entered a scheduling order setting a trial
date for September 2025.
The trial date has since been extended to February 2026.
In May 2024, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
In July 2024, notice was provided to potential class members.
The case is otherwise in discovery.
DXC Technology Company is an information technology services and
consulting company based in Ashburn, Virginia.[BN]
ECHOSTAR CORP: Continues to Defend Lingam Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
EchoStar 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 9, 2024, that the Dish Network, the Company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, continues to defend itself from the Lingam
securities class suit in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.
On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was
filed against the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network
and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado.
The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of its securities during the February 22, 2021 to
February 27, 2023 class period.
In general, the complaint alleges that DISH Network's public
statements during that period were false and misleading and
contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that
DISH Network allegedly maintained a deficient cyber-security and
information technology infrastructure, were unable to properly
secure customer data and DISH Network's operations were susceptible
to widespread service outages.
In August 2023, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel, and, on October 20, 2023, they filed an
amended complaint that abandoned the original allegations.
In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that, during the
class period, the defendants concealed problems concerning the 5G
network buildout that prevented scaling and commercializing the
network to obtain enterprise customers.
The amended complaint added as individual defendants James S.
Allen, DISH Network's Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting
Officer; John Swieringa, our President, Technology and Chief
Operating Officer; Dave Mayo, DISH Network's former Executive Vice
President of Network Development; Marc Rouanne, DISH Network's
former Executive Vice President and Chief Network Officer; and
Stephen Bye, DISH Network's former Executive Vice President and
Chief Commercial Officer.
After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs
filed a further amended complaint, asserting the same theory, on
February 23, 2024.
The new complaint drops Erik Carlson, John Swieringa, Paul Orban
and James Allen as individual defendants.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.
EchoStar Corporation, incorporated on October 12, 2007, is a
holding company. The Company is a provider of satellite operations,
video delivery solutions, digital set-top boxes, and broadband
satellite technologies and services for home and office, delivering
network technologies, managed services, and solutions for
enterprises and governments. The Company operates through three
segments: Hughes, EchoStar Technologies (ETC) and EchoStar
Satellite Services (ESS). The company is based in Englewood,
Colorado.
ECHOSTAR CORP: Continues to Defend Owen-Brooks Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
EchoStar 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 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Owen-Brooks data breach class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.
On May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary DISH Network in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.
She purports to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in
the United States who allegedly had private information stolen as a
result of the February 23, 2023 Cyber-security Incident (and a
North Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals).
On behalf of the nationwide class, she alleges claims for
contractual breaches, negligence and unjust enrichment (and, on
behalf of the North Carolina subclass only, violation of the North
Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act), and seeks monetary
damages, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment.
Since that filing, ten additional putative class action complaints
have been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, purporting to represent the same nationwide
class of people, and Owen-Brooks has filed an amended complaint.
On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an order consolidating the
first ten cases (the eleventh was dismissed) and, on November 16,
2023 and January 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed consolidated
amended class action complaints.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this case certainty the
outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential
liability or damages.
EchoStar Corporation, incorporated on October 12, 2007, is a
holding company. The Company is a provider of satellite operations,
video delivery solutions, digital set-top boxes, and broadband
satellite technologies and services for home and office, delivering
network technologies, managed services, and solutions for
enterprises and governments. The Company operates through three
segments: Hughes, EchoStar Technologies (ETC) and EchoStar
Satellite Services (ESS). The company is based in Englewood,
Colorado.
ECHOSTAR CORP: Dish Network Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EchoStar 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 9, 2024, that DISH Network, the Company's
wholly-owned subsidiary continues to defend itself from the Jones
401(k) class suit in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.
On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary DISH
Network, its Board of Directors, and its Retirement Plan Committee
alleging fiduciary breaches arising from the management of its
401(k) Plan.
The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or
after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive
recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained
underperforming funds.
On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint be granted,
and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion.
As permitted by the Court's order, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations
regarding the alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom
Funds.
On November 7, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint be
denied as to the duty to prudently monitor fund performance, but be
granted as to the duty of loyalty and, on November 27, 2023, the
district court judge entered an order adopting the recommendation.
On April 30, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to certification
of the proposed plaintiff class.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.
It cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the
suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or
damages.
EchoStar Corporation, incorporated on October 12, 2007, is a
holding company. The Company is a provider of satellite operations,
video delivery solutions, digital set-top boxes, and broadband
satellite technologies and services for home and office, delivering
network technologies, managed services, and solutions for
enterprises and governments. The Company operates through three
segments: Hughes, EchoStar Technologies (ETC) and EchoStar
Satellite Services (ESS). The company is based in Englewood,
Colorado.
EDISON SPA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Claude Says
------------------------------------------------------------
WISLANDE CLAUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EDISON SPA & FITNESS, INC, Case No. 2:24-cv-08875
(D.N.J., Aug. 30, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.islandspasauna.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The suit contends that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted
multiple times, most recently on April 26, 2024 to access
Defendant's Website from her home access Defendant's Website from
her home but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal
access to Defendant's online 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 reviewing the services and booking a spa
session in order to visit the spa., the suit claims.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates
www.islandspasauna.com, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the services that Defendant offers,
specifically in the State of New Jersey. Specifically, the Website
offers users the ability to peruse the spas services as well
book a spa session.[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
ELI LILLY & CO: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELI LILLY & Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the ACTOS third party payor class suit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
The Company is named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.
and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) in a third party payor
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
Plaintiffs claim that they and similarly situated class members are
entitled to recover money paid for or to reimburse Actos
prescriptions because of alleged concealment of bladder cancer
risk.
The Company's agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and
indemnify it against its losses and expenses with respect to U.S.
litigation arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of Actos
and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the
agreement.
In August 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted the Company and Takeda's
petition for permission to appeal the class certification order,
and the appeal has been fully briefed.
This matter is ongoing.
Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company based out of
Indianapolis, IN.
ELI LILLY & CO: Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
ELI LILLY & Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 13, 2024, that the United States District
Court for the Western District of New York. has dismissed an
antitrust and unjust enrichment claims class suit. The Plaintiffs
have filed an appeal on the dismissal.
In July 2021, the Company, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC
(Sanofi), Novo Nordisk Inc. (Novo Nordisk), and AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP (AstraZeneca), were named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York by Mosaic Health, Inc. alleging
antitrust and unjust enrichment claims related to the defendants'
340B distribution programs.
The Company, with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca, filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was granted in September 2022.
In January 2024, the court dismissed the case.
In February 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
This matter is ongoing.
Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company based out of
Indianapolis, IN.
EMBLEMHEALTH INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Hold Class Cert Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cordova et al., v.
EmblemHealth, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02933-JHR-GWG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order holding
in abeyance the current deadline of Sept. 13, 2024, for the
Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification.
The parties anticipate being able to file a motion for preliminary
approval of a class settlement within 45 days of this letter.
The parties have reached a settlement in principle to resolve this
matter on a class basis following two mediation sessions and
additional discussions subsequent to it.
The parties are currently in the process of negotiating all
remaining settlement terms and finalizing a settlement agreement.
EmblemHealth provides health care insurance and benefit plans.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FgOkd3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
FILIPPATOS PLLC
199 Main Street, Suite 800
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 984-1111
Facsimile: (914) 984-1111
E-mail: trahman@filippatoslaw.com
ENVESTNET INC: Continues to Defend Wesch Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Envestnet 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 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Wesch class suit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.
The Company and Yodlee were named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit filed on August 25, 2020, by Plaintiff Deborah Wesch
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On October 21, 2020, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Plaintiff Wesch and nine additional named plaintiffs.
The case caption currently is Clark, et al., v. Yodlee, Inc. Case
No. 3:20-cv-5991-SK (formerly entitled Deborah Wesch, et al., v.
Yodlee, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK).
Plaintiffs alleged that Yodlee unlawfully collected their financial
transaction data when plaintiffs linked their bank accounts to a
mobile application that uses Yodlee's Instant Account Verification
API, and plaintiffs further allege that Yodlee unlawfully sold the
transaction data to third parties.
The complaint alleged violations of certain California statutes and
common law, including the Unfair Competition Law, and federal
statutes, including the Stored Communications Act.
Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and equitable and
injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide
class and California subclass of persons who provided their log-in
credentials to a Yodlee-powered app in an allegedly similar manner
from 2014 to the present.
On November 4, 2020, the Company and Yodlee filed separate motions
to dismiss all of the claims in the complaint.
On February 16, 2021, the district court granted in part and denied
in part Yodlee's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and
granted the plaintiffs leave to further amend.
The court reserved ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss and
granted limited jurisdictional discovery to the plaintiffs.
On March 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action
complaint re-alleging, among others, the claims the district court
had dismissed.
The second amended complaint did not allege any claims against the
Company or Yodlee that were not previously alleged in first amended
complaint.
On May 5, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims
asserted against it in the second amended complaint, and Yodlee
filed a motion to dismiss most claims asserted against it in the
second amended complaint.
On July 19, 2021, the court granted in part Yodlee's motion,
resulting in the dismissal of all federal law claims and two of the
state-law claims.
On August 5, 2021, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, and dismissed the Company from the lawsuit.
On October 8, 2021, Yodlee filed an early motion for summary
judgment.
On August 12, 2022, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third
amended complaint, which Yodlee opposed.
On September 29, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to
amend the complaint.
On December 13, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Yodlee's early motion for summary judgment, narrowing the scope of
issues that remain to be resolved.
On January 30, 2023, the Court granted Yodlee's motion for
reconsideration and dismissed one additional claim.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 19, 2023, which
Yodlee answered on October 3, 2023.
Discovery is closed.
On May 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification,
which Yodlee opposed on June 12, 2024; motion is pending.
Yodlee believes the allegations are without merit and will continue
to vigorously defend the remaining claims against it.
Envestnet, Inc. is a financial services company based in
Pennsylvania.
EQUIFAX INFO: Bid to Lodge Docs Under Seal Tossed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Corinna Sullivan, v.
Equifax Information Services LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00061-JGZ-BGM
(D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Macdonald entered an order:
-- denying Plaintiff's motion to Lodge Documents Marked
Confidential
Under Seal and to File Redacted Motion; and
-- granting the Plaintiff leave to file unredacted versions of
these
documents, including her motion for class certification, on the
public case docket within 7 days of the date of this Order.
Pursuant to the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures
Manual, "the lodged proposed [Exhibits] remain[ ] under seal and
will not be considered."
The Plaintiff has the option of resubmitting unredacted versions of
these documents in the public record.
Equifax Information offers financial, consumer and commercial data,
and analytical solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=65kSqa at no extra
charge.[CC]
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Equity Bancshares 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 9, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the overdraft fees class suit in Sedgwick
County Kansas District Court.
Equity Bank is party to a lawsuit filed on January 28, 2022, in the
Sedgwick County Kansas District Court on behalf of one of its
customers alleging improperly collected overdraft fees.
The plaintiff seeks to have the case certified as a class action.
The Bank has filed a motion to dismiss this claim on its merits and
on the grounds that the defendant must litigate any such claims in
arbitration.
The trial court ruling denying the requirement of arbitration is
currently on appeal.
The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit, and it
intends to vigorously defend against the claim asserted.
At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss
amount of this litigation.
Equity Bancshares, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered in
Wichita, Kansas.
EUSD BOARD: Mirabelli Seeks Reconsideration of August 26 Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated;
LORI ANN WEST, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; et al., v. MARK OLSON, in his official capacity
as President of the EUSD Board of Education, et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00768-BEN-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will apply to the
Court for reconsideration of its August 26, 2024 order, which
stayed Plaintiffs' pending motion for summary judgment or a
preliminary injunction, and Plaintiffs' pending motion for class
certification, until after the resolution of any motions to
dismiss.
Alternatively, the Plaintiffs request clarification that they can
still seek a class-wide preliminary injunction, which necessitates
the filing of a motion for class certification.
This Application is made on the grounds that the Court granted
Defendant Bonta's motion to stay before Plaintiffs could opposite
it, such that everything in this application constitutes new facts
and circumstances.
Further, although Defendant Bonta conceded that Plaintiffs could
seek a preliminary injunction, the order is vague regarding how
Plaintiffs may do so, warranting clarification. Because of the
gravity of these issues, and the need for immediate injunctive
relief, Plaintiffs respectfully request a brief hearing on this
application, in the event the Court believes it would be helpful.
This Application is supported by the accompanying Memorandum of
Points and Authorities, by the declarations of Paul M. Jonna, Esq.,
Jane Poe, and Jane Doe, and by such further argument and evidence
that may be adduced at any hearing on this matter.
With the beginning of the Fall 2022 semester, upon finding numerous
gender transitioning children in their classes, Plaintiffs
Mirabelli and West submitted a Title VII religious accommodation
request from having to lie to parents. Halfway through the next
semester, in March 2023, their request was denied.
In June 2024, they sought to join this lawsuit, hoping to gain
relief in advance of the Fall 2024 semester. They seek injunctive
and declaratory relief requiring California schools to be entirely
forthcoming about everything going on with Child Poe at school.
The Plaintiffs Elizabeth Mirabelli, Lori Ann West, Jane Roe, and
Jane Boe are devoted educators who have taught for decades with the
Escondido Union School District.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W1oFOQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles S. LiMandri, Esq.
Paul M. Jonna, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Trissell, Esq.
LiMANDRI & JONNA LLP
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Telephone: (858) 759-9930
Facsimile: (858) 759-9938
E-mail: cslimandri@limandri.com
pjonna@limandri.com
jtrissell@limandri.com
- and -
Thomas Brejcha, Esq.
Peter Breen, Esq.
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY
309 W. Washington St., Ste. 1250
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-1680
E-mail: tbrejcha@thomasmoresociety.org
pbreen@thomasmorsociety.org
EUSD BOARD: Seeks to Continue Summary Judgment Bid
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, an
individual, and LORI ANN WEST, an individual, v. MARK OLSON, in his
official capacity as President of the EUSD Board of Education, et
al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00768-BEN-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask
the Court to enter an order:
(1) continuing Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
Motion for Summary Judgment (137) pending resolution of the
Attorney General's forthcoming motion to dismiss, and
(2) extending the Attorney General's responsive pleading
deadline
to Sept. 30, 2024, and adopt the proposed briefing
schedule.
The Attorney General would also propose and request the Court order
the following briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss: until
Oct. 18, 2024, for Plaintiffs to file an opposition brief to the
motion to dismiss; until Oct. 28, 2024, for the Attorney General to
file a reply; and for hearing on the motion to dismiss to take
place on Nov. 4, 2024.
On Jan. 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint,
adding Attorney General Bonta and California Governor Gavin Newsom
as defendants but otherwise making no substantive changes to their
claims.
On May 10, 2024, the Court dismissed the Attorney General and
Governor from the case for lack of jurisdiction.
On Aug. 13, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
(SAC) that drastically reformulated Mirabelli and West's narrow
lawsuit into a sweeping statewide class action against the Attorney
General and CDE that raises new legal claims and adds new teachers
and parents from school districts in Fresno and Los Angeles
Counties as plaintiffs.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qFYZ5G at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Rob Bonta, Esq.
Darrell W. Spence, Esq.
Emmanuelle S. Soichet, Esq.
KEVIN QUADE
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 510-4426
Facsimile: (415) 703-5843
E-mail: Emmanuelle.Soichet@doj.ca.gov
EXPENSIFY INC: Continues to Defend Wilhite Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expensify 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 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Wilhite securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon.
On November 29, 2023, a putative securities class action (the
"Putative Class Action") was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon captioned Wilhite v. Expensify,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01784-JR, naming the Company, two of
its executive officers and two of its former directors as
defendants (collectively, the "Defendants").
The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of all those who
purchase or acquired its stock pursuant or traceable to its initial
public offering ("IPO").
The complaint alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false or misleading
statements in the offering documents filed in connection with its
IPO.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
On January 29, 2024, three shareholders moved to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the Putative Class Action.
The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on March 11,
2024.
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the lead plaintiff's amended
complaint was filed May 10, 2024, naming six of its current board
members as additional defendants (together with the Defendants, the
"Amended Defendants").
Amended Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was
filed on July 9, 2024.
The lead plaintiff's opposition is due September 6, 2024, and the
Amended Defendants' reply is due October 18, 2024.
The court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the Amended
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Amended Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing and will
continue to vigorously defend against the claims in the Putative
Class Action.
Expensify is a software company that develops an expense management
system for personal and business use.
EXTREME NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Steamfitters Local Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 16, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from Steamfitters Local 449 securities class suit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On August 13, 2024, a putative securities class action (the "Class
Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California captioned Steamfitters Local 449
Pension & Retirement Security Funds v. Extreme Networks, Inc., et
al., Case No. 5:24-cv-05102-TLT, naming the Company and certain of
its current and former executive officers as defendants.
The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
Extreme Networks securities between July 27, 2022 and January 30,
2024 (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements
about our business and prospects during the Class Period.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.
The Company intend2 to deny the allegations of wrongdoing and
vigorously defends against the claims in the Class Action.
Extreme Networks, Inc. is a provider of computer networking
solutions doing business in California. [BN]
FANDOM INC: Beke Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW BEKE, individually
and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, v. FANDOM, INC.
Case No. 4:22-cv-04423-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court to consider whether portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, the Expert Report of Dr. Zubair Shafiq, and certain
exhibits attached to the Declaration of Simon S. Grille in Support
of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification should be maintained
under seal.
The Plaintiff seeks to seal information detailing the video content
he viewed on Fandom's website. Not only is the imperative to
protect such information the crux of this litigation, but courts
have recognized the “strong interest in preserving privacy in a
matter of sensitive and highly personal nature.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EgMqkC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Simon Grille, Esq.
Reid Gaa, Esq.
Anthony Rogari, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
sgrille@girardsharp.com
rgaa@girardsharp.com
arogari@girardsharp.com
FANDOM INC: Beke VPPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW BEKE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FANDOM, INC.,
Case No. 4:22-cv-04423-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court , on Jan. 16, 2025, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) or,
alternatively, (c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for
an order certifying a Class of:
"all persons in the United States who had an account with
Fandom.com and requested or obtained video content on
Fandom.com
while logged into their Facebook account on the same browser
between June 19, 2021 and Nov. 10, 2023."
Excluded from the Class are Defendant Fandom, its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors; any entity in
which Fandom has a controlling interest; governmental entities;
and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation,
as
well as their staff and immediate family members.
The Plaintiff is a Fandom subscriber. He alleges that Fandom
disclosed his video viewing history to Meta Platforms Inc. without
his consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act
(VPPA).
The requirements of Rule 23(a) are met because the Class includes
at least thousands of Fandom subscribers, and their VPPA claims
turn on common questions, including the basic question of whether
Fandom made disclosures prohibited by the VPPA using a digital
advertising tool called the Meta Pixel.
The Plaintiff's VPPA claim is typical of the Class because, like
all Class members, he provided personal information to register an
account with Fandom and alleges that Fandom disclosed his private
information to Meta without lawful consent.
Fandom is an entertainment company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Q3QbZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Simon Grille, Esq.
Reid Gaa, Esq.
Anthony Rogari, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
sgrille@girardsharp.com
rgaa@girardsharp.com
arogari@girardsharp.com
FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: Discovery in Besser Securities Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
FirstSun Capital Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that discovery is ongoing
for the Besser overdraft fees class suit.
On September 13, 2021, Samantha Besser filed a putative class
action amended complaint against the Bank in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.
The amended complaint alleges that the Bank improperly charged
multiple insufficient funds or overdraft fees.
The Plaintiff seeks unspecified restitution, actual and statutory
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and other
relief as the Court deems proper.
On September 27, 2021, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was denied on March 11, 2024.
The case is now in discovery.
At this time, the Bank is unable to reasonably estimate the outcome
of this litigation.
FirstSun Capital Bancorp, headquartered in Denver, Colorado, is the
financial holding company for Sunflower Bank, National Association,
which operates as Sunflower Bank, First National 1870 and Guardian
Mortgage.
FLOCK FOODS: Website Inaccessible to Blind People, Fagnani Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MYKAYKLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLOCK FOODS, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-06581 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
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.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services
-- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby
increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons
that Title III was meant to redress, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
The Defendant operates the Flock Foods online retail store, as well
as the Flock Foods interactive Website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
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
FLORISUN LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FLORISUN LLC d/b/a DAZED, Case No. 1:24-cv-06569
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website,
www.dazed.fun to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff contends that he was injured when attempting to
access Defendant's Website www.dazed.fun on August 10, 2024, from
his home in Bronx County, in an effort to search for and purchase
Defendant’s products and services, but encountered various access
barriers that denied him full and equal access to Defendant’s
online goods, content, and services.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using his computer.
The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired," as
Plaintiff's central visual acuity with correction is less than or
equal to 20/200. Some sight-impaired individuals who meet this
definition have limited vision while others have zero vision.
The Defendant is a New York Limited Liability company that owns and
maintains the Website, www.dazed.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
10 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
FRASS BOX: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FRASS BOX CANNABIS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06576
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff contends that he was injured when attempting to
access Defendant’s Website, on Aug. 10, 2024, from his home in
Bronx County, in an effort to search for and purchase Defendant's
products and services, but encountered various access barriers that
denied him full and equal access to Defendant's online goods,
content, and services.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using his computer.
The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired," as
Plaintiff's central visual acuity with correction is less than or
equal to 20/200. Some sight-impaired individuals who meet this
definition have limited vision while others have zero vision.
FRASS BOX CANNABIS LLC is a cannabis shop in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
10 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
GARNET HEALTH: Faces ERISA Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN GEORGE, ARIENNE PATZELT, MELISSA ZUBER, and TSU HAN
POH-GRACIA, as representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the Garnet Health Medical Center 403(b)
Retirement Savings Plan and Garnet Health Medical Center -
Catskills 403(b) Retirement Savings Plan v. GARNET HEALTH MEDICAL
CENTER, Case No. 7:24-cv-06422 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2024) alleges
that Garnet breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by failing to monitor:
(i) the Plan's stable value investment option;
(ii) other proprietary investments furnished by the Plan's
recordkeeper; and
(iii) the cost of the Plan's administrative services.
The Plaintiffs contend that Garnet's failure to remove and replace
these high-cost, underperforming investment options and to control
the administrative fees charged to the Plan resulted in substantial
losses to the Plan recoverable under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. section 1109.
Garnet failed to act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence
required of Garnet as an ERISA fiduciary. In 2010, Garnet purchased
a bundled package of products and services for the Plan on the
advice of a broker, but has not to this day implemented a prudent
process for monitoring them. Garnet's failure since 2010 to monitor
this bundled, broker-sold package of products and services
constitutes a violation of its fiduciary duties under ERISA, the
suit says.
Had Garnet prudently evaluated the Plan's package of products and
services by comparing them to other products and services readily
available in the marketplace, it would have discovered that the
Plan's investment returns were too low and its fees too high.
Garnet has managed the Plan for the benefit of service providers
first and participants only second.
The Plan has during the statutory period to date suffered more than
$12 million in losses from the high fees Garnet failed to monitor
and from Garnet's poor investment choices. These losses continue
both to accrue and to compound as a result of Garnet's continuing
failure to implement a prudent process for replacing deficient
investments and for controlling costs, in a further violation by
Garnet of its fiduciary duties under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. section
1104(a)(1) that continues to this day, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the Plan pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 1132 to recover the losses resulting from
Garnet's ERISA violations and to compel Garnet to implement prudent
processes to prevent further losses to the Plan.
Mr. George currently has an account balance in the Plan and has
maintained an account balance in the Plan throughout the statutory
period.
Ms. Patzelt had an account in the Plan from the start of the
statutory period until she withdrew her account.
Garnet is a federally-designated primary stroke center.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE LLC
323 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-8349
E-mail: jlee@engstromlee.com
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
- and -
James H. White IV, Esq.
JAMES WHITE FIRM LLC
2100 Morris Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 317-2551
E-mail: james@whitefirmllc.com
GATOR RAILWAY: Commercial Property Violated ADA, Brito Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO v. GATOR RAILWAY, INC. and K&W RESTAURANT CORP d/b/a
THAI HOUSE II, Case No. 1:24-cv-23343 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 30, 2024) is
class action lawsuiy for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial
restaurant and bar business located within the commercial property
to be rife with ADA violations.
The subject commercial property and restaurant and bar are open to
the public and is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The
individual Plaintiff visits the commercial property and restaurant
and bar regularly, to include visits to the commercial property and
business located within the commercial property on June 27, 2024,
and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly
affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property.
He often visits the commercial property and the restaurant and bar
located within the commercial property in order to avail himself of
the goods and services offered there, and because it is
approximately thirty-three (32.5) miles from his residence and is
near other businesses he frequents as a patron.
He plans to return to the commercial property and restaurant and
bar within two (2) months from the date of the filing of this
Complaint.
The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial
property and commercial restaurant and bar business located within
the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and
use of the premises.
Gator owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property, to
include its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the
restaurant and bar business operating within the commercial
property and all other common areas open to the public located
within the commercial property.
K&W owns, operates and oversees the commercial restaurant and bar
within its commercial property, to include the entrance and
interior to its commercial restaurant and bar business therein and
all other interior pathway and aisles, access to commercial goods
and services (to include the bar area and tables), and restroom
areas, which are open to the public located within the commercial
property.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject places of public accommodation.
The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial property and
commercial restaurant and bar business have each denied or
diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit these places of public
accommodation and have endangered his safety in violation of the
ADA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend CMWA, TVPA-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------
GEO 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA") and the Federal
Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA") class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Civil immigration detainees at the Aurora ICE Processing Center
filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA") and the Federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Act ("TVPA").
The complaint also claims that the Company was unjustly enriched
based on the level of payment the detainees received for work
performed in a Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") the Company is
required to implement at the facility under the terms of its
contract with the federal government.
On July 6, 2015, the court found that detainees were not employees
under the CMWA and dismissed this claim.
On February 27, 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims.
The plaintiffs' class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper.
On October 18, 2022, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment on the Company's affirmative defenses,
denying the Company's motion for summary judgment, motion to
dismiss, and motion for decertification of the class, narrowing the
class period for plaintiffs' TVPA claims, and otherwise ruling
against the Company's motions for relief.
All trial dates are currently stayed by court order pending appeal
of certain of GEO's defenses to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal.
Oral argument before the 10th Circuit was held on September 18,
2023.
GEO strongly disputes the claims made in the lawsuit, and intends
to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself from the
lawsuit.
GEO Group is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in
private prisons and mental health facilities in North America,
Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.
GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend TVPA Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
GEO 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA")
class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
Division of the Central District of California.
In California, a class action lawsuit was filed on December 19,
2017, by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern Division of the Central District of
California.
The California lawsuit alleges violations of the state's minimum
wage laws, violations of the TVPA and California's equivalent state
statute, unjust enrichment, unfair competition and retaliation.
The California court has certified a class of individuals who have
been civilly detained at the Company's Adelanto Facility from
December 19, 2014, until the date of final judgment.
On March 31, 2022, the court entered a stay until the Ninth Circuit
rules on the State of Washington lawsuits.
GEO strongly disputes the claims made in the lawsuit, and intends
to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself from the
lawsuit.
GEO strongly disputes the claims made in these lawsuits, and
intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself
from these lawsuits.
GEO GROUP: Continues to Defend VWP Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
GEO 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 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from Voluntary Work Program (VWP) class suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California,
Fresno Division.
Current and former detainees of the Mesa Verde ICE Processing
Center and the Golden State Annex ICE Processing Center filed a
class action lawsuit on July 13, 2022, against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno
Division.
This lawsuit is similar to the cases in Colorado, State of
Washington, and California.
The complaint alleges that federal detainees who volunteer to
participate in the VWP at GEO's Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex
ICE facilities are employees of GEO and entitled to the state's
minimum wage.
Plaintiffs also make claims for unfair competition, unjust
enrichment, human trafficking, forced labor, California's Private
Attorneys General Act and retaliation.
GEO filed both a motion to stay the action pending the Ninth
Circuit's decision in the State of Washington lawsuits and a motion
to dismiss the action in its entirety.
On July 10, 2023, the court entered a stay until the Ninth Circuit
rules on the State of Washington lawsuits.
GEO believes it operates the VWP in full compliance with its
contract with ICE and all applicable laws, regulations, and
standards.
GEO strongly disputes the claims made in these lawsuits, and
intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself
from these lawsuits.
GEO Group is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in
private prisons and mental health facilities in North America,
Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.
GEORGETOWN CORNER: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARONDA DUPUIS and SHARON
HEATHER FOX on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. GEORGETOWN CORNER TAVERN, LLC; MICHAEL RABB,
individually; PHILIP BROUSSARD, individually; and JACQUELINE
HUBSCHMAN, individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-05739-DCN (D.S.C.), the
Hon. Judge David Norton entered an order as follows:
1. Conditionally certify this matter as a collective action for
actual damages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs under 29 U.S.C. section216(b);
2. Certify the action as a Rule 23 Class Action;
3. Define the class as follows:
"All GCT employees from the date of its opening around Aug.
2022
who at any time were paid a direct hourly rate less than
$7.25
per hour and contributed a portion of their tips to a tip
pool."
4. The Notice and Consent is appropriate to provide notice to
the
Class Members, via U.S. Mail, and for allowing Class Members
to
opt-in, or join, the FLSA class and either to remain in or
opt-
out of the Rule 23 Class.
5. The Email Notice (ECF 28-7) is appropriate for sending notice
to Class Members via email. The subject line of the email
shall
read: Georgetown Corner Tavern Class Action Lawsuit -- Please
Read.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hxIaM9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Desousa Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHELE'AN DESOUSA v. GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA, Case No. 204221401
(Fla, Cir., Osceola County, Aug. 7, 2024) is class action complaint
against American Express alleging violations of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act, in attempting to collect such
debt by communicating with Plaintiff and others similarly situated
between the hours of 9:00p.m. and 8:00 a.m. without prior consent
and brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220.
The Plaintiff opened an account with Defendant for personal or
household use. He contends that she never provided the Defendant
with consent to communicate with her between the hours of 9:00 p.m.
and 8:00 a.m.
The Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and costs and
attorneys' fees from Defendant.
This class action is brought on each Plaintiff's own behalf and on
behalf of all other similarly situated consumers under Fla. R. Civ.
P. 1.220(b)(1)(A) and in the alternative Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.220(b)(3). The class is defined as:
"All consumers in the State of Florida who were sent
correspondence and/or notices from Defendant substantially
similar or materially identical to the emails sent to Plaintiff,
relating to a consumer debt, between the hours of 9:00 pm and
8:00 am in their respective time zone without the
consumer's.
The Defendant was and is a State Chartered Bank, with its principal
place of business in the state of New York, does business in the
state of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kaelyn Diamond, Esq.
ZIEGLER DIAMOND LAW: DEBT FIGHTERS
2430 Estancia Boulevard, Unit 108
Clearwater, FL 33761
Telephone: (727) 538-4188
Facsimile: (727) 362-4778
E-mail: kaelyn@attorneydebtfighters.com
service@attorneydebtfighters.com
- and -
Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
Alejandro J. Mendez, Esq.
Kellie N. O'connell, Esq.
SHRADER, MENDEZ & OCONNELL
612 W. Bay Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 360-1529
Facsimile: (813) 336-0832
E-mail: bshrader@shraderlawfirm.com
amendez@shraderlawfirm.com
koconnell@shraderlawfirm.com
GOOD GRADES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Igartua Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GOOD GRADES LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06575 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
30, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff contends that he was injured when attempting to
access Defendant's Website, www.goodgradesnyc.com on August 20,
2024, from his home in Bronx County, in an effort to
search for and purchase Defendant's products and services,
including their premium edible cannabis, "Gron Mega -- Tropical
Twist -- Rosin -- Gummy -- 100 mg," but encountered various access
barriers, which denied him full and equal access to Defendant’s
online goods, content, and services.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using his computer.
The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired," as
Plaintiff's central visual acuity with correction is less than or
equal to 20/200. Some sight-impaired individuals who meet this
definition have limited vision while others have zero vision.
The Defendant is a New York Limited Liability corporation that owns
and maintains the Website, www.goodgradesnyc.com which states, "Our
mission is to provide high quality cannabis products that not only
make people feel good about themselves, but also contribute
positively to the community we call home."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
10 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
HAPPY DAYS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Igartua Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HAPPY DAYS DISPENSARY INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06594
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when attempting to access Defendant's
Website www.happydaysli.com on August 23, 2024, from his home in
Bronx County, in an effort to search for and purchase Defendant's
products and services, including their premium edible, "Citrus
Crush -- 100 mg -- 10 pk, Gezoont," but encountered various access
barriers, which denied him full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content, and services.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using his computer.
The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired," as
Plaintiff's central visual acuity with correction is less than or
equal to 20/200. Some sight-impaired individuals who meet this
definition have limited vision while others have zero vision.
The Defendant owns a dispensary in Farmingdale, New York, and
maintains the Website, www.happydaysli.com offering great parking
and fast pickup.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
10 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
HARMONIOUS HEALING: Luna Seeks Straight Time Employees' OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
ISALFREDO LUNA, individually and for others similarly situated v.
HARMONIOUS HEALING, INC. d/b/a PERSPIRE SAUNA STUDIO, Case No.
4:24-cv-03223 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 28, 2024) is a collective action
against Harmonious to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendant Perspire employed the Plaintiff as one of its Straight
Time Employees. Mr. Luna and the other Straight Time Employees
regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But Perspire did not
pay them overtime. Instead, Perspire paid Luna and its other
Straight Time Employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
including those worked after 40 in a workweek, says the suit.
Perspire applied its alleged illegal straight time for overtime pay
scheme to Luna and its other Straight Time Employees regardless of
any individualized factors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
1201 Fannin Street, Suite 202
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (832) 446-9403
Facsimile: (832) 356-2684
E-mail: tjones@hkm.com
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend Bhangal Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Bhangal securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
On August 24, 2023, a putative securities class action captioned
Bhangal v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., No.:
3:23-cv-04332-JSC (the Securities Action) was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
against HEI and certain of its current and former officers
(collectively, Defendants), and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against certain of HEI's current and former officers.
Plaintiff broadly alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding HEI's wildfire
prevention and safety protocols and related matters.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages.
On December 7, 2023, the court appointed Daniel Warren as lead
plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.
On March 8, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The Company has filed a motion to dismiss that complaint and
intends to vigorously defend against this action.
Hawaiian Electric is the largest supplier of electricity in the
U.S. state of Hawaii.
HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Marshall Removed From State Court to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN MARSHALL, individually, and on behalf of similarly
situated employees v. HEARTLAND EXPRESS, INC. OF IOWA, an Iowa
Corporation, Case No. CIV SB 2415603 (Filed May 1, 2024) 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 -- Eastern Division on Aug. 29,
2024.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:24-cv-01860
The Complaint asserts the following claims for relief: (1) Failure
to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime; (3) Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (5)
Failure to Pay Timely Wages; (6) Wage Statement Violations; (7)
Untimely Final Wages; (8) Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business
Expenses; (9) Unfair Competition; (10) Fair Credit Reporting Act
Violations; and (11) Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act
Violations.
The Plaintiff brings this case as a class representative.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class
defined as:
"All current and former hourly-paid and/or non-exempt
employees who worked for Defendants in the State of California
at any time during the period from four years prior to the date
of the filing of this Complaint through final judgment."
The Complaint asserts all the causes of action against the
Defendant on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class.
In addition to the Proposed Class, Plaintiff seeks to certify a
proposed former employee sub-class defined as:
"All former hourly-paid and/or non-exempt employees who worked
for Defendants in the State of California at any time during the
period from four years prior to the date of the filing of this
Complaint through final judgment."
Finally, the Plaintiff also seeks to certify an additional
FCRA/ICRAA sub class defined as:
"All prospective, current and former hourly-paid and/or non-
exempt employees of Defendants in the State of California on
whom Defendants ran background check(s) at any time during the
period from five years prior to the date of the filing
of this Complaint until final judgment."
Heartland provides trucking services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David R. Ongaro, Esq.
Cara R. Sherman, Esq.
Christinne Lee, Esq.
ONGARO PC
1604 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 433-3900
Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com
csherman@ongaropc.com
clee@ongaropc.com
HOME DEPOT: Loveland Suit Removed From State Court to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
LORI LOVELAND, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. C24-01968 (Filed by July 25,
2024) was removed from the Court of California, County of Contra
Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on Aug. 29, 2024.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-06142 to the proceedings.
The putative class action complaint alleges causes of action for:
(1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime
compensation; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to
provide rest periods; (5) failure to reimburse necessary business
expenses; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) failure to provide
accurate wage statement; and (8) unfair and unlawful business
practices.
The Complaint also seeks penalties for alleged Labor Code
violations under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.
The Plaintiff seeks to bring her action as a class action on behalf
of a proposed "Class" defined as:
"all persons who worked for any Defendant in California as a
salaried Assistant Store Manager at any time during the period
beginning four years before the filing of the initial complaint
in this action and ending when notice to the Class is
sent."
Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances,
and services, including fuel and transportation rentals. Home Depot
is the largest home improvement retailer in the United States.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
John D. Hayashi, Esq.
Matthew M. Arnold, Esq.
Hailey A. Phelan, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Telephone: (714) 830-0600
Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
john.hayashi@morganlewis.com
matthew.arnold@morganlewis.com
hailey.phelan@morganlewis.com
HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Seeks Sept. 20 Extension of Reply Brief Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the
Defendants to oppose class certification up to and including Sept.
6, 2024.
1. The Defendants received Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification on July 22, 2024.
2. As the Parties indicated in their last request for an
extension,
they have been discussing a revised class definition to
eliminate or narrow any potential disputes.
3. Although the Parties have made significant progress in this
regard, they are still working on refining the proposed
definition, particularly with respect to identifying neutral,
objective, non-legal terms within the definition.
4. Plaintiff’s counsel has assented to the brief extension
requested by Defendants, so that the Parties may continue to
collaboratively work together on narrowing the scope of any
potential disputes.
5. Defendants propose extending the deadlines for filing, if
necessary, as follows: Event Current Date Proposed Date
Oppositions to Motion for Class Certification filed by:
August
30, 2024 September 6, 2024, Reply Brief filed by: September
13,
2024 September 20, 2024
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=083ig1 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 Defendants are 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
HUB CYBER: Prelim. Hearing on Avner Bid to Certify Set for Nov. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hub Cyber Security Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 16, 2024, that the Avner class
suit preliminary hearing is scheduled on November 4, 2024.
On March 6, 2023, Mr. Maj'haj Avner (the "Applicant") filed a class
action certification motion (the "Motion to Certify") against the
Company and eight additional respondents in the District Court in
Tel Aviv, alleging that the Company's public announcement that it
received irrevocable investment commitments as part of the PIPE
Financing was false.
The Applicant seeks to represent anyone who purchased the Company's
ordinary shares after the announcement of the Business Combination
in March 2022 until the end of February 23, 2023, which was the
last trading day of the Company's ordinary shares on the TASE.
The Applicant claims personal damages in the amount of NIS 50,752,
while the claim for the alleged damage for the members of the
affected group was valued at a total of more than NIS 2.5 million.
The Motion to Certify also asserts that the Company's alleged
actions demonstrate a violation of the duties of care and trust
imposed on the officers and the directors of the Company by the
Companies Law, a violation of disclosure obligations under the
Israeli Securities Law, and a violation of other statutory duties.
On January 30, 2024, eight respondents filed a motion to dismiss
outright the Motion to Certify (the "Motion to Dismiss") as well as
a Motion to extend the deadline for filing the Company's response
to the Motion to Certify.
The court ultimately rejected the Motion to Dismiss at a hearing on
March 24, 2024.
On June 2, 2024, eight respondents filed their response to the
Motion to Certify in which they requested that the confidentiality
of certain items of its response be maintained which request was
subsequently granted by the court.
On July 2, 2024, the Applicant responded to the response filed by
the eight respondents and on July 9, 2024, sent the eight
respondents a demand for disclosure of documents (the "Disclosure
Request").
At a hearing held on July 10, 2024, the court recommended that
three respondents be removed from the Motion to Certify and the
Applicant waive all cause of action that do not relate to the
Securities Law which recommendations the Applicant subsequently
adopted.
At the same hearing, the court ordered five of the respondents to
respond to the Disclosure Request by August 11, 2024 and that if
the Applicant does not receive a satisfactory response to the
Disclosure Request by such date, the Applicant should submit to the
court a motion for discovery of documents by September 1, 2024, to
which the respondents would be required to respond by September 30,
2024.
The Company was also instructed to inform the court by September
23, 2024, if it still stands by its motion regarding
confidentiality.
A preliminary hearing was set for November 4, 2024.
HUB Cyber Security Ltd. focuses on two symbiotic lines of business
– Confidential Computing and Cyber Security Professional
Services a trusted advisor to its customers. The symbiotic
connection between the two offerings is deeply rooted in the
company's strategy.
ILLINOIS: Faces McKinzie Class Suit Over Release of Prisoners
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM McKINZIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LATOYA HUGHES, in her individual capacity and
official capacity as the Director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, Case No. 3:24-cv-50363 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 2024)
contends that the IDOC's policy and practice of refusing to release
individuals who have completed their terms of imprisonment and been
approved by the Prisoner Review Board ("PRB") for release on to MSR
but cannot obtain housing violates the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments and seeks an injunction prohibiting the Department from
continuing to enforce this policy.
Pursuant to IDOC policy, all prisoners must identify a "host site"
(i.e., a residential address) at which to reside while on MSR. The
Department will not release imprisoned persons on to MSR unless and
until they identify a host site that meets Department approval.
The Plaintiff remains imprisoned because he is unable to obtain
housing that meets the approval of the IDOC. He is indigent and
cannot obtain his own housing outside of prison.
There are at least two potential ways for the IDOC to meet its
constitutional obligations to release persons who have completed
their court-ordered terms of imprisonment:
(1) release persons on MSR who cannot afford housing into
homelessness; or
(2) create transitional housing for persons on MSR who cannot
afford housing.
Plaintiff McKinzie is imprisoned in the Illinois Department of
Corrections ("IDOC") and has been convicted of aggravated arson. He
completed his court-ordered sentence of incarceration on January
30, 2024, and has been statutorily entitled to release from prison
onto Mandatory Supervised Release ("MSR") since that date.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
5707 W. Goodman Street
Chicago, IL 60630
Telephone: (847) 361-3869
E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com
- and -
Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG
3612 N. Tripp Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
Telephone: (773) 283-3913
E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net
ILLINOIS: Violates IDEA and ADA, Herbert Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
EXODUS HEBERT, ANTONIO MONROE, DAMEN GONZALEZ, DELEON MOFFETT,
GEORGE GARCIA, JEREMIAH BROWN, ISAIHA HERRING, THAILAN HOPKINS,
SHIRICE HENDRIX, DARRION LONGSTREET, ANTWON TOMPKIN, IVAN JOHNSON,
KEYSHAWN NICHOLS, JESSE GARZA, NYREE DUGANS, ANTJUAN DAVIS, AMARU
EVANS, ROBERT "RAVEN" MELTON, QURAN BROOMFIELD, DASHEEM PICKENS,
and DELCHEVA HARRIS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, and ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-07950 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 30, 2024) is a
case brought on behalf of young people with disabilities in the
custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, who want to turn
their lives around by earning their high school diplomas so they
can be employed upon their release and positively contribute to
their community pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants bear the responsibility
of providing and monitoring the delivery of such special education
and high school services. They have consistently and systemically
failed to fulfill this duty by not having a policy or practice of:
(i) identifying eligible students; (ii) notifying eligible students
of their right to these educational services; (iii) having any
special education services and high school credit-bearing courses;
and (iv) providing special education or high school credit-bearing
courses.
The Plaintiffs and class members, as qualified students under the
IDEA, are entitled to receive a FAPE in the least restrictive
environment (the "LRE"). Each of them has an Individualized
Education Program ("IEP"), as provided for by the IDEA. Defendants
have failed to establish any system or practice for identifying
individuals who had IEPs and did not have high school diplomas upon
entering IDOC.
IDOC is a department of the Illinois state government responsible
for operating the adult state prison system. Established in 1970,
IDOC oversees a network of correctional facilities across the
state, including maximum, medium, and minimum-security
prisons.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Johanna Spellman, Esq.
Terra Reynolds, Esq.
Nicholas Hazen, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (312) 876-7700
Facsimile: (312) 993-9767
E-mail: johanna.spellman@lw.com
terra.reynolds@lw.com
nicholas.hazen@lw.com
- and -
Olga Pribyl, Esq.
Sujatha Branch, Esq.
Rachel Shapiro, Esq.
Alexandra Kuske, Esq.
Brianna Hill, Esq.
EQUIP FOR EQUALITY
20 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 341-0022
Facsimile: (312) 800-0912
E-mail: olga@equipforequality.org
sujatha@equipforequality.org
Rachel@equipforequality.org
Alexandra@equipforequality.org
brianna@equipforequality.org
INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Grobler Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inotiv 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 Grobler securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
On June 23, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Indiana, naming the Company and Robert W. Leasure and Beth A.
Taylor as defendants, captioned Grobler v. Inotiv, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00045 (N.D. Ind.).
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and
misleading statements and material omissions regarding the
Company's acquisition of Envigo RMS and its regulatory compliance.
On September 12, 2022, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System was appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff.
Thereafter, on November 14, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint against the same defendants, in addition to John
E. Sagartz and Carmen Wilbourn, that asserted the same claims along
with a claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.
On November 23, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended
complaint against the aforementioned defendants asserting the same
claims as the amended complaint and further alleging that false and
misleading statements and material omissions were made concerning
the Company's non-human primate business.
The purported class in the operative complaint includes all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
between September 21, 2021 and November 16, 2022, and the complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.
On January 27, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. That motion was fully briefed by April 28, 2023.
On March 29, 2024, the Court issued a decision denying, in part,
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The case is now in discovery.
While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the
Company believes the class action to be without merit and plans to
vigorously defend itself.
Inotiv provides nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and
development services, research models and related products and
services.
INOTIV INC: Timeline for Final OK of Settlement Still Not Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inotiv 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 9, 2024, that the PAGA class suit settlement
final approval timeline is not yet set.
Envigo RMS, LLC ("Envigo RMS") is a defendant in a purported class
action and a related action under California’s Private Attorney
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") brought by Jacob Greenwell, a former
non-exempt employee of Envigo RMS, on June 25, 2021 in the Superior
Court of California, Alameda County.
The complaints allege that Envigo RMS violated certain wage and
hour requirements under the California Labor Code.
PAGA authorizes private attorneys to bring claims on behalf of the
State of California and aggrieved employees for violations of
California's wage and hour laws.
The class action complaint seeks certification of a class of
similarly situated employees and the award of actual, consequential
and incidental losses and damages for the alleged violations.
The PAGA complaint seeks civil penalties pursuant to the California
Labor Code and attorney's fees.
On June 2, 2023, Envigo RMS and the plaintiff signed a Memorandum
of Understanding ("MOU") that sets forth the parties' intent to
settle these matters for $795 which includes attorneys' fees.
The MOU provides that the parties will negotiate and enter into a
definitive settlement agreement, which will be subject to court
approval. The MOU contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing
by Envigo RMS.
The MOU provides that, if the settlement is approved by the court,
the settlement amount would be paid in four quarterly installments,
with the first one to be funded after the court's final approval of
the settlement, and the following ones in the three subsequent
quarters.
The parties are in the process of finalizing the long-form
settlement agreement.
While the timeline for final court approval is not yet determined,
the Company took a reserve equal to the proposed settlement amount,
which is included in accrued expenses and other current
liabilities.
Inotiv provides nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and
development services, research models and related products and
services.
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Class Cert Hearing Modified to Jan. 23, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. (RE: DA VINCI SURGICAL ROBOT ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order modifying the schedule on
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be modified as
follows:
Event Proposed Date
Plaintiffs' Reply Oct. 8, 2024
Hearing on the motion Jan. 23. 2025
On June 6, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification and a report from one expert.
On Aug. 2, 2024, Intuitive filed its Opposition to the Motion.
Intuitive develops, manufactures, and markets robotic products
designed to improve clinical outcomes of patients through minimally
invasive surgery.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IxIapF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Icee N. Etheridge, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
ietheridge@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
Daniel McCuaig, Esq.
Christopher J. Bateman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC
11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 515-2604
Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com
bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com
cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
Samuel Maida, Esq.
Reena A. Gambhir, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite
3200 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com
smaida@hausfeld.com
rgambhir@hausfeld.com
- and -
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
John E. Sindoni, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
jsnyder@bonizack.com
jsindoni@bonizack.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Allen Ruby, Esq.
ALLEN RUBY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
15559 Union Ave. 138
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Telephone: (408) 477-9690
E-mail: allen@allenruby.com
- and -
Joshua Hill, Esq.
Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq.
Paul D. Brachman, Esq.
William B. Michael, Esq.
Crystal L. Parker, Esq.
Daniel A. Crane, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 204-7420
E-mail: kgallo@paulweiss.com
pbrachman@paulweiss.com
wmichael@paulweiss.com
cparker@paulweiss.com
dcrane@paulweiss.com
jhill@paulweiss.com
- and -
Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq.
Sonya E. Winner, Esq.
Andrew Lazerow, Esq.
Ashley E. Bass, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
E-mail: kcahoy@cov.com
swinner@cov.com
alazerow@cov.com
abass@cov.com
J. DAVID TAX: Bid to Strike Iverson Class Allegations Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY R. IVERSON, DAWN M.
IVERSON, GEORGE HOWELL III, GH HEATING & AIR LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. J. DAVID TAX LAW,
LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00718-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James
Peterson entered an order that:
1. Defendant J. David Tax, LLC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claim for "unreasonable and illegal fees," is granted, and
the
claim is dismissed.
2. J. David's motion to strike the class allegations, is
denied.
3. J. David's motion to stay, is denied as moot.
Wisconsin law does not recognize a disgorgement theory based solely
on a violation of the Supreme Court Rules.2 The remedy for such a
violation is to file a complaint with the Office of Lawyer
Regulation, not to file a civil lawsuit. The court will grant J.
David's motion to dismiss this claim.
J. David's only argument is that individual issues of causation and
damages necessarily preclude class certification. That contention
is inconsistent with circuit law, so the court will deny J. David's
motion to strike the class allegations related to the
unfair-trade-practices and malpractice claims. J. David is free to
renew its arguments about commonality on a more developed record.
The plaintiffs were clients of J. David. They contend that J. David
failed to help them with their tax debts as promised, charged them
an unreasonable fee, and lied about the firm’s qualifications.
The complaint asserts claims under Wisconsin law for malpractice,
"unreasonable and illegal fees," and violations of Wis. Stat.
section 100.18 (the unfair-trade-practices statute).
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of
"all Wisconsin residents who contracted with J. David within
the
applicable statute(s) of limitations."
J. David is a tax law firm with offices in Jacksonville providing
customized tax solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b2pBEo at no extra
charge.[CC]
J.B. PRITZKER: Court Narrows Claims in Key Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE KEY, Y14225, v. J.B.
PRITZKER, ROB JEFFERYS, A. WILLIS, TOURVILLE, LT. SNELL, SGT.GATES,
MEAD, LT. McCARTHY, ESERIE, and SPILLER, Case No. 3:24-cv-00564-SMY
(S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Staci Yandle entered an order that:
-- Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 are dismissed without prejudice against
all
other defendants for failure to state a claim.
-- All other defendants are dismissed without prejudice. The
current
Warden of Menard Correctional Center (official capacity) is
added
for purposes of implementing any injunctive relief.
-- With respect to counts 1 and 2, the Clerk of Court shall
prepare for Defendants Tourville, Snell, Mead, Gates, Eserie
(individual capacities), and Menard's Current Warden (official
capacity only): (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to
Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of
Summons).
The Court also entered an order that if a Defendant can no longer
be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the employer
shall furnish the Clerk with that Defendant’s current work
address, or, if not known, his or her last-known address.
This information shall be used only for sending the forms as
directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation
of the address shall be retained only by the Clerk. Address
information shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed
by the Clerk.
Mr. Key, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, filed this
civil rights action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. He
asserts claims for unsafe and inhumane living conditions in
Menard’s East Cell House. Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive
relief.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8DB94a at no extra
charge.[CC]
J.M. SMUCKER: Class Cert. Bid in Jeruchim Due Jan. 27, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA JERUCHIM and
MELISSA VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS,
LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William
Orrick entered an order as follows:
1. The Parties' joint case management statement will remain due
on
Oct. 8, 2024.
2. The Case Management Conference will remain set for Oct. 15,
2024, at 2:00 p.m.
3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification will be due by
Jan. 27, 2025.
4. Defendants' Opposition will be due by April 7, 2025.
5. Plaintiffs' Reply will be due by May 18, 2025.
6. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
will
be reset to June 16, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.
7. Fact discovery cutoff will be July 21, 2025.
8. Expert disclosure will be due Aug. 7, 2025.
9. Expert rebuttal will be due Oct. 6, 2025.
10. Expert discovery cutoff will be Nov. 3, 2025.
11. Dispositive Motions will be heard by Jan. 26, 2026.
12. Pretrial Conference will be set for April 20, 2026, at 2:00
p.m.
13. Trial will be set for May 18, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. by Jury.
J.M. Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t45owu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Julia K. Venditti, Esq.
Emily A. Horne, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jvenditti@bursor.com
ehorne@bursor.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq.
Ethan W. Weber, Esq.
Bart L. Kessel, Esq.
Anna-Sophie Tirre, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 592-5000
Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com
ethan.weber@tuckerellis.com
bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com
anna-sophie.tirre@tuckerellis.com
JELLYCAT INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MYKAYKLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JELLYCAT INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-06579 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website, https://us.jellycat.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. 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.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services
-- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby
increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons
that Title III was meant to redress.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to
refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.
The Defendant operates the Jellycat online retail store, as well as
the Jellycat interactive Website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
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
JENSEN-LEWIS EAST: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hernandez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JENSEN-LEWIS EAST, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06105
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.jensen-lewis.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people, pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The suit alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff
attempted multiple times, most recently on July 9, 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 the 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 reviewing the menu and
making a reservation at the restaurant, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Hernandez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Defendant is 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.
The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online
sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers
features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access
navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail
consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for
sale.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
JOHN FEYEN: Rich Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN RICH, v. JOHN
FEYEN, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01496-DDD-STV (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the Classes:
-- Denver Class
"All peace officers and their respective law enforcement agency
and municipality or county governing body who have subjected a
person to unconstitutional search or seizure of their persons
or
vehicles on the basis of their vagrancy without any reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity."
The Plaintiff proposes that the Denver Class be represented by
Defendants Haliburton and the City and County of Denver.
-- Poudre Class
"Any person identified under C.R.S. section
27-65-105(1)(a)(II)
and their employer who has enacted a mental health hold against
a
member of the Kern Class (defined in section II) under a
wrongful
classification of that class member being gravely disabled but
based on that class member's status as a vagrant.
The Plaintiff proposes that the Poudre Class be represented by
Defendants Kern and Poudre Valley Hospital.
-- West Pines Class
"Any physician or mental health practitioner and their
institution
who, under a 72-hour mental health hold enacted pursuant to
C.R.S.
section 27-65-105 diagnoses a member of the Kern Class with a
mental health disorder to which the diagnostic criteria for
such
mental health disorder requires the existence and observation
of a
symptom or symptoms for a period exceeding the duration of the
72-
hour mental health hold.
The Plaintiff proposes that the West Pines Class be represented
by
Defendants Martens and West Pines Behavioral Health.
The named Plaintiff proposes to certify the following plaintiff
Classes and Subclasses:
-- "Larimer Class" Plaintiff proposes the following plaintiff
Class
for which they seek monetary damages: All persons who have been
subjected to unconstitutional search or seizure of their
persons
or vehicles by a Colorado peace officer on the basis of their
vagrancy without any reasonable basis for suspecting criminal
activity.
-- "Kern Class" Plaintiff proposes the following plaintiff Class
for
which they seek monetary damages:
"All persons who have been subjected to a 72-hour involuntary
mental health hold pursuant to C.R.S. section 27-65-105 under a
wrongful classification as gravely disabled by a member of the
defendant Poudre Class
-- "Martens 1 Subclass" Plaintiff proposes the following plaintiff
Subclass for which they seek monetary damages:
"All persons who are a member of the Kern Class and have been
diagnosed with a mental health disorder to which the diagnostic
criteria for such mental health disorder requires the
existence and observation of a symptom or symptoms for a period
exceeding the duration of the 72-hour mental health hold."
-- "Martens 2 Subclass" Plaintiff proposes the following plaintiff
Subclass for which they seek monetary damages:
"All persons who are a member of the Martens 1 Subclass and
have
been subjected to a certification action with the courts of the
state of Colorado, whether or not fully litigated, initiated by
a
member of the defendant West Pines Class."
-- "False Imprisonment Subclass" Plaintiff proposes the following
plaintiff Subclass for which they seek monetary damages:
"All persons who are members of the Kern Class or Martens 1
Subclass who were released from custody on or after May 28,
2023,
or who are members of the Martens 2 Subclass and were released
from custody or their legal disability on or after May 28,
2022."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fRLXgA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Goddard, Esq.
BRUNO, COLIN, GODDARD & LOWE, P.C.
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1606
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (303) 831-1099
E-mail: dgoddard@brunolawyers.com
- and -
Amy Cook, Esq.
OLSON KLEIN COOK OLSON, LLC
2130 Resort Drive, Unit E
Steamboat Springs, CO 80487
E-mail: acookolson@kco-law.com
- and -
Jonathan Eddy, Esq.
Eric M. Ziporin, Esq.
SGR, LLC
3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 700
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (303) 320-0509
E-mail: eziporin@sgrllc.com
jeddy@sgrllc.com
- and -
LeeAnn Morrill, Esq.
COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center, 1300 Broadway
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (720) 508-6000
Facsimile: (720) 508-6032
E-mail: leeann.morrill@coag.gov
- and -
Laura M. Wassmuth, Esq.
Travis J Miller, Esq.
CAPLAN AND EARNEST, LLC
3107 Iris Avenue Suite 100
Boulder, CO 80301
Telephone: (303) 443-8010
E-mail: lwassmuth@celaw.com
tmiller@celaw.com
- and -
Chad Knox, Esq.
GILLAM HALL & EVANS LLC
1001 Seventeenth Street Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 628-3300
Facsimile: (303) 628-3368
E-mail: gillamc@hallevans.com
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Dixon Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Jones Financial Cos. LLLP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 28, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Dixon class suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Gender and Race Discrimination Class Action. On March 9, 2022,
Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a lawsuit (Dixon,
et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The lawsuit was brought by a current financial advisor as a
putative collective action alleging gender discrimination under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and by a former financial advisor as a
putative class action alleging race discrimination under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981.
On April 25, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
reasserting the original claims with modified allegations and
adding claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
alleging race/national origin, gender, and sexual orientation
discrimination on behalf of putative classes of financial advisors.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2022, and on
September 15, 2022, the court stayed further proceedings in the
case pending a decision on the motion to dismiss.
On March 31, 2023, the district court denied the motion to dismiss
and lifted the stay of proceedings.
Edward Jones and JFC filed an answer to the amended complaint on
April 17, 2023.
The parties subsequently commenced the first phase of discovery
related to collective and class certification, and are currently
resolving disputes on the scope of discovery through pending
motions.
Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. operates as an investment
management company. The Company offers wealth management,
retirement savings, insurance, annuities, mutual funds, stocks,
investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory services.
Jones Financial serves customers in the United States and Canada.
[BN]
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Jones Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Jones Financial Cos. LLLP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 28, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Jones class suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Securities Class Action. On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its
affiliated entities and individuals were named as defendants in a
putative class action (Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California.
The lawsuit originally was brought under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as
well as Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants
inappropriately transitioned client assets from commission-based
accounts to fee-based programs.
The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary
relief, and compensatory damages.
On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing
the lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice.
On July 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which eliminated certain defendants, withdrew the Securities Act
claims, added claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as
amended (the "Investment Advisers Act"), and certain additional
state law claims, and reasserted the remaining claims with modified
allegations.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs
subsequently withdrew their Investment Advisers Act claims, and on
November 12, 2019, the district court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss all other claims.
The plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of certain
of their state law claims on jurisdictional grounds but did not
appeal the dismissal of the remaining claims.
On March 4, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court's dismissal of those state law claims.
After further appellate proceedings in the Ninth Circuit,
defendants filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court, which was denied on January 18, 2022.
On February 2, 2022, the defendants filed a renewed motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' remaining state law claims.
On May 9, 2022, the court dismissed the second amended complaint
without prejudice.
On May 31, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
alleging a single claim of breach of fiduciary duty under Missouri
and California law against a single defendant, Edward Jones, which
Edward Jones moved to dismiss on June 21, 2022.
The district court denied the motion to dismiss in an order filed
on October 26, 2022. Edward Jones filed its answer to the third
amended complaint on November 14, 2022.
On September 22, 2023, the plaintiffs moved for class
certification.
On the same date, Edward Jones moved for summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' individual claims and to dismiss the third amended
complaint on jurisdictional grounds.
The district court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss
on January 8, 2024 and held a hearing on Edward Jones' motion for
summary judgment on May 23, 2024.
As of the date of this report, the summary judgment and class
certification motions remain pending decision by the court.
Edward Jones denies the plaintiffs' allegations and intends to
continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. operates as an investment
management company. The Company offers wealth management,
retirement savings, insurance, annuities, mutual funds, stocks,
investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory services.
Jones Financial serves customers in the United States and Canada.
[BN]
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Zigler Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Jones Financial Cos. LLLP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 28, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Zigler class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Home Office Gender Discrimination Class Action. Edward Jones and
JFC were named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by a former
employee (Zigler v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. et al.) in the
Northern District of Illinois.
The initial complaint filed on September 1, 2022 alleged putative
class and collective claims under the Equal Pay Act of 1963
("EPA"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Illinois
state laws of gender-based wage discrimination against a subset of
female home office associates whom the plaintiff described as
“home office financial advisor[s]."
The plaintiff amended the complaint on November 29, 2022, seeking
to expand the putative collective and class definitions to include
all female home office associates in any role.
Edward Jones and JFC filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on January 6, 2023.
On June 9, 2023, the district court granted in part and denied in
part the defendants' motion to dismiss, narrowing the plaintiff's
EPA claim and related state-law claim to one of her roles at the
company, limiting the plaintiff's Title VII claim and related
state-law claim to a disparate treatment theory of liability as
opposed to a disparate impact theory, and accepting the plaintiff's
agreement to dismiss JFC from the case without prejudice.
Edward Jones filed its answer to the amended complaint on June 23,
2023.
The parties subsequently commenced the first phase of discovery
related to collective and class certification, and are currently
resolving disputes on the scope of discovery through pending
motions.
Edward Jones denies the allegations and intends to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. operates as an investment
management company. The Company offers wealth management,
retirement savings, insurance, annuities, mutual funds, stocks,
investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory services.
Jones Financial serves customers in the United States and Canada.
[BN]
JONES LANG: Serra's Bid for Class Certification Due Feb. 6, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Serra v. Jones Lang
Lasalle Americas, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-05408 (N.D. Cal., Filed
Oct. 20, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an
order granting stipulation extending hearing dates for motion for
class certification.
-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Feb. 6, 2025
-- Defendant's Opposition Brief: March 13,
2025
-- Plaintiffs' Reply Brief: April 17,
2025
-- Hearing on Class Certification: May 8, 2025
The nature of suit states Labor Management Relations.
Jones Lang provides commercial real estate and investment
management services.[CC]
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Deposit Sweep Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH LOPEZ, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06489 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2024)
arises out of a simple ruse:
-- Defendants, in violation of their contractual obligations and
fiduciary duty to act in their customers' best interests, have
failed to secure for their customers reasonable interest rates
on their customers' cash balances.
Instead, those customers' cash balances are used by Defendants to
generate massive profits for themselves. Through the use of deposit
sweep programs or "cash sweep" programs, Defendant JPMS, acting as
its customers' agent and fiduciary, automatically "sweeps" cash
balances held in client accounts and deposits that cash into a
deposit account at its affiliated bank, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.
The Defendants allegedly implemented the Bank Deposit Sweep Program
supposedly to offer JPMS's customers an interest paying vehicle to
hold cash that offers FDIC insurance on those cash deposits.
Plaintiff Kenneth Lopez was a customer of JPMS and is a resident
and citizen of Nassau County, New York. The Plaintiff maintained an
account with JPMS in which cash was held over the course of the
life of the account. While Plaintiff was a JPMS customer, the cash
held in his account was automatically "swept" into a low
interest-bearing bank account at JPMCB pursuant to the Bank Deposit
Sweep Program, says the suit.
JPMorgan is a financial services firm based in the U.S. with
operations worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
Michele Carino, Esq.
GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC
881 Lake Avenue, Greenwich CT 06831
Telephone: (203) 629-4900
E-mail: mcarino@grwlegal.com
JWB PROPERTY: Bid to Compel Responses Granted in Byrd Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICKA M. BYRD, et al., v.
JWB PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00266-WWB-SJH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Samuel Horovitz
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to compel
responses to the Plaintiffs' second requests for production of
documents to defendants and renewed motion to compel responses to
the Plaintiffs' first request for production of documents.
1. The Motion is granted to the extent that the Defendants shall
produce to Plaintiffs full SafeRent reports, inclusive of
exhibits, from March 9, 2021 through Aug. 23, 2024, for
SafeRent
reports, inclusive of exhibits, that include an LT alert.
2. Such production shall be in native format (individual PDFs
per
applicant) and completed by Oct. 22, 2024. The Defendants
shall
make every reasonable effort to complete the production
sooner,
and as expeditiously as possible, and shall make interim
productions on Sept. 12, 2024 and Oct. 2, 2024, of all
responsive documents compiled as of those dates.
3. The parties' joint ore tenus motion to extend the deadline
for
moving for class certification in the Case Management and
Scheduling Order ("CMSO"), is granted. The deadline for
moving
for class certification is extended to Nov. 21, 2024.
In light of this extension, however, the Court finds it will likely
be necessary to also extend the deadlines in the CMSO for
dispositive and Daubert motions and for trial by approximately two
months.
Accordingly, on or before Sept. 9, 2024, the parties shall jointly
file a proposed schedule for the remaining case management
deadlines, following which the Court will enter an amended CMSO.
JWB is a vertically-integrated real estate investment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dRovDh at no extra
charge.[CC]
JWB PROPERTY: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended in Byrd Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Byrd, et al., v. JWB
Property Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00266 (M.D.
Fla., Filed March 9, 2023), the Hon. Judge Wendy W. Berger entered
an order extending the deadline for moving for class certification
in the Case Management and Scheduling Order.
The nature of suit states housing discrimination.
JWB is a privately-owned company focused on rental properties and
service.[CC]
KOOTENAI HEALTH: Faces Capello Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL CAPELLO and JOSEPH JORDAN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KOOTENAI HEALTH, INC.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00407-DKG (D. Idaho, Aug. 30, 2024) 6. Ultimately,
Kootenai Health failed to fulfill this obligation, as unauthorized
cybercriminals breached Kootenai Health's information systems and
databases and stole vast quantities of Private Information
belonging to Kootenai Health's patients, including Plaintiffs and
Class members. The Data Breach -- and the successful exfiltration
of Private Information -- were the direct, proximate, and
foreseeable results of multiple failings on the part of Kootenai
Health.
On Feb. 22, 2024, Kootenai Health experienced a data breach
incident in which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed its
information systems and databases and stole Private Information
belonging to Plaintiffs and Class members. The Data Breach occurred
because Kootenai Health failed to implement reasonable security
protections to safeguard its information systems and databases.
Thereafter, Kootenai Health failed to timely detect this Data
Breach until 161 days—nearly 6 months -- after the Data Breach
occurred.
Moreover, before the Data Breach, Kootenai Health failed to inform
the public that its data security practices were deficient and
inadequate. Had Plaintiffs and Class members been made aware of
this fact, they would have never provided such information to
Kootenai Health, says the suit.
Kootenai Health provides comprehensive medical care and services to
patients in northern Idaho, eastern Washington, Montana, and the
Inland Northwest at several facility locations. As part of its
operations, Kootenai collects, maintains, and stores highly
sensitive personal and medical information belonging to its
patients, including, but not limited to their full names, Social
Security numbers, driver's license numbers, information regarding
medical treatment, diagnosis, and prescriptions, medical record
numbers, health insurance information, and other protected health
information.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jaren Wieland, Esq.
MOONEY WIELAND WARREN
512 W. Idaho St., Suite 103
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: (208) 401-9219
Facsimile: (888) 234-8543
E-mail: jaren.wieland.service@mooneywieland.com
- and -
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER &
SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
KRAEMER NORTH: Settlement Class Certified in Blackwell Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Blackwell, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Kraemer
North America, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-01851-KMM-LIB (D. Minn.), the
Hon. Judge Katherine Menendez entered an order granting class
certification for settlement purposes:
"all individuals who were sent notification by Defendant that
their personal information was or may have been compromised
in
the Data Incident."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges
presiding
over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2)
Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its
parents
have a controlling interest and their current or former
officers, directors, and employees; and (3) Settlement Class
Members who submit a valid a Request for Exclusion prior to
the
Opt-Out Deadline.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Court hereby affirms
its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order certifying
Plaintiffs and Class Representatives for the Settlement Class and
appointing Class Counsel to serve as counsel for the Settlement
Class.
The Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately
represented the Settlement Class both in terms of litigating the
Action and for purposes of entering into and implementing the
Settlement and have satisfied the requirements of Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) and 23(g), respectively.
Kraemer North America is a full-service heavy civil contractor.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5M1xEw at no extra
charge.[CC]
KROGER CO: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISHA SOLANO et al., v.
THE KROGER CO., dba Fred Meyer, Case No. 3:18-cv-01488-AR (D. Or.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an
extension of the briefing deadline as follows.
Filing/brief Current Deadline New
Deadline
Plaintiffs' Response to Sept. 3, 2024 Sept. 17,
2024
Defendant's Objections to F&R
The Plaintiffs request this extension because defendant's
extensions have pushed plaintiffs' response to a period in which
undersigned counsel and other members of plaintiffs' team are
scheduled to be out of the office and this additional time will be
necessary to complete the briefing.
This is plaintiffs' first request to extend this deadline.
On July 16, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings And
Recommendation on Class Certification (F&R), granting plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and denying defendant’s separately
filed motion to deny class certification.
Kroger Company is an American retail company that operates
supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United
States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hv2xLF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kelly D. Jones, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KELLY D. JONES
819 SE Morrison St., Suite 255
Portland, OR 97214
Telephone: (503) 847-4329
E-mail: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com
KROGER CO: Seeks to File Sur-Reply in Kirkbride Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE and BEETA
LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the Defendant's
motion for leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and a sur-rebuttal
report from one of Kroger's experts, Jed Smith.
Copies of the proposed sur-reply and sur-rebuttal report are
attached as Exhibits A and B, and a memorandum in support follows
this motion.
Kroger had no opportunity to address these matters in its prior
expert reports. Good cause exists to allow a short sur-rebuttal
report to allow Kroger to contest "new submissions" presented "for
the first time" in connection with expert reports submitted with
Plaintiffs' reply.
On July 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their
motion for class certification.
Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kjrIq8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Nathaniel Lampley, Jr., Esq.
Robert Webner, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
Atrium Two, Suite 2000 221 East Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 723-4000
Facsimile: (513) 852-7869
E-mail: NLampley@vorys.com
rnwebner@vorys.com
- and -
Selina Coleman, Esq.
Michael S. Leib, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
1301 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1000 – East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 414-9200
Facsimile: (202) 414-9299
E-mail: scoleman@reedsmith.com
mleib@reedsmith.com
LANSING COMMUNITY: Court Conditionally Certifies Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re Lansing Community College Data
Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00738-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Paul Maloney entered an order conditionally certifying
the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3)
("Settlement Class"):
"All natural persons whose Personal Information was compromised
in
the Data Security Incident."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judges
presiding
over the Action and members of their immediate families and
their
staff; (2) Lansing Community College, its subsidiaries, parent
companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which
Lansing Community College or its parents, have a controlling
interest, and its current or former officers and directors; (3)
natural persons who properly execute and submit a Request for
Exclusion prior to the expiration of the Opt-Out Period; and
(4)
the successors or assigns of any such excluded natural person.
The Court finds that the proposed Settlement set forth in the
Settlement Agreement is sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate
such that it is hereby preliminarily approved and notice of the
Settlement should be provided to the Settlement Class Members and
that a hearing shall be held as set forth below.
Subject to final approval of the Settlement, the Court finds and
concludes, for settlement purposes only, that the prerequisites to
a class action, set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b), are
satisfied.
The Court, subject to final approval, hereby appoints Plaintiffs
Ivory Whitby, Sameer Shah, Gabriel Banish, William Barber, Lindsay
Luoma, and Chelsea Lee Ouimette as the Class Representatives, for
settlement purposes only, on behalf of the Settlement Class.
The Court appoints the settlement administrator proposed by the
Parties, Kroll Settlement Administration LLC.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nId0l2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LESLIE'S INC: Continues to Defend WPBPPF Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie's 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 West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
On September 8, 2023, a class action complaint for violation of
federal securities laws was filed by West Palm Beach Police Pension
Fund in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against
the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief
Financial Officer.
On December 1, the court appointed lead plaintiff, and on February
20, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended and consolidated
complaint.
The amended and consolidated complaint alleges that it violated
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements that failed to disclose adverse facts about its
financial guidance, business operations and prospects, and seeks
class certification, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other
relief.
Due to the early stage of this proceeding, it cannot reasonably
estimate the potential range of loss, if any.
It disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend
ourselves vigorously in this matter.
Leslie's, Inc. is a direct-to-consumer pool and spa care brand. It
markets and sells pool and spa supplies and related products and
services, which primarily consist of maintenance items such as
chemicals, equipment and parts, and cleaning accessories, as well
as safety, recreational, and fitness-related products.
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Jackson Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to N.D. W.Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL JACKSON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. LEXISNEXIS RISK
SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. CC-04-2024-C-40 (Filed July 22, 2024), was
removed from the Circuit Court of Braxton County, West Virginia, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia, Clarksburg Division, on Aug. 26, 2024.
The Northern District of West Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:24-cv-00081-TSK to the proceeding.
The suit alleges that LexisNexis violated West Virginia's Daniel's
Law, West Virginia Code section 5A-8-24, thousands of times by
disclosing, redisclosing, or otherwise making available the home
addresses or unpublished home or personal telephone number of
thousands of active, formerly active, or retired judicial officers,
prosecutors, federal or state public defenders, federal or state
assistant public defenders, or law-enforcement officers from West
Virginia without their written permission.
LexisNexis provides on-line search services that allows people to
search for ad learn information about other people, including, in
some cases, their home addresses and phone numbers.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Bruce M. Jacobs, Esq.
James Brydie, Esq.
James A. Walls, Esq.
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
Charleston, WV 25321-0273
Telephone: (304) 340-3800
Facsimile: (304) 340-3801
E-mail: bjacobs@spilmanlaw.com
jbrydie@spilmanlaw.com
jwalls@spilmanlaw.com
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Torres Seeks to Vacate Class Cert. Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. ANTHONY TORRES D.O.,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., a division of RELX,
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02504-MHC-RDC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order to vacate the deadline to move for
class certification established by Local Rule 23.1(B).
Discovery needs to be taken prior to the filing of any motion for
class certification so that a factual record related to class
certification can be adequately presented to the Court.
The parties will confer about the scope of class discovery at their
Rule 26(f) conference and will propose an alternate deadline for a
motion for class certification in their Joint Preliminary Report
and Discovery Plan.
The Defendant does not oppose the relief sought by this motion. A
proposed Order is attached to this motion.
This case is a putative class action under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act. The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 7, 2024.
The Plaintiff's current deadline to file a motion for class
certification is Sept. 5, 2024.
LexisNexis is a global data and analytics company that provides
data and technology services, analytics, predictive insights, and
fraud prevention for a wide range of industries.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3JV7eN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
WEINER & SAND LLC
800 Battery Ave. SE, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 205-5029
Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
E-mail: js@wsjustice.com
aw@wsjsutice.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS,
P.C.
1600 Market Street, 25th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.coM
- and -
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
Nicholas Linker, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW, LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
Facsimile: (973) 282-8603
E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
nl@zemellawllc.com
LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifecore Biomedical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending August 23, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the
United States District Court of Minnesota.
On July 29, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of shareholders of the Company in the United States District
Court of Minnesota against the Company and certain of its named
executive officers.
The complaint generally alleges that statements made to the
Company's shareholders between October 7, 2020, and March 19, 2024
regarding the Company's financial results, internal controls,
remediation efforts, periodic reporting, and financial prospects
were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements
because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs, and
attorneys' fees.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.
Any potential loss arising from this claim is not currently
probable or estimable.
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Continues to Defend Armand Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
LifeStance Health 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 13, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Armand class suit in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
In the first half of 2023, two related hybrid collective/class
action lawsuits, captioned Armand et al. v. LifeStance Health
Group, Inc. and Jessica McAfee et al. v. LifeStance Health Group,
Inc., were filed against the Company, in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on January 1, 2023 and the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on June
22, 2023, respectively, by a putative collective or class
representing employees of the Company related to advance on
compensation and alleged underpayments for time worked.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages. The process of
resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop
over an extended period of time; therefore, at this time, the
ultimate resolution cannot be predicted.
The Company has not recorded any material accruals for loss
contingencies and in management's opinion no material range of loss
is estimable for this matter as of June 30, 2024.
LifeStance is a mental healthcare company focused on providing
evidence-based, medically driven treatment services for children,
adolescents, and adults suffering from mental health issues.
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Continues to Defend Strong Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
LifeStance Health 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 13, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Strong class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona.
On April 26, 2023, a class action litigation captioned Strong v.
LifeStance Health Group, Inc. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona against the Company by a
putative class representing users of the Company's website who
allege various privacy-related claims premised on the Company's use
of pixel technologies on its website.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages.
The Company has moved to dismiss all claims.
The process of resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and
may develop over an extended period of time; therefore, at this
time, the ultimate resolution cannot be predicted.
The Company has not recorded any material accruals for loss
contingencies and in management's opinion no material range of loss
is estimable for this matter as of June 30, 2024.
LifeStance is a mental healthcare company focused on providing
evidence-based, medically driven treatment services for children,
adolescents, and adults suffering from mental health issues.
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Bid to Certify Class Granted in Aley Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA ALEY, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS, LLC,
Case No. 5:22-cv-00330-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne
Nardacci entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to
certify the class of:
"all persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers
were
on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2)
but
who received more than one telemarketing call from Lightfire as
part of the "Auto Protectors" calling campaign (3) within a
12-
month period, (4) as evidenced in the calling data Lightfire
produced in this lawsuit, (5) from [the] four years prior [to]
the
filing of the Complaint."
The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision
and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
The Court said that there is no evidence that the interests of
Plaintiff Aley and the other Proposed Class Members are at odds.
Rather, the record reflects that Plaintiff Aley and the Proposed
Class Members have the same incentive to maximize their
compensation for past harm and that she is knowledgeable about the
general contours of the case.
On April 7, 2022, the Plaintiff Aley, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, brought this putative class action
against the Defendant alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA").
The Plaintiff Aley alleges she placed her telephone number on the
DNCR on Oct. 27, 2008, and that her phone number has remained on
the DNCR since that time.
On Dec. 11, 2023, the Plaintiff Aley filed a motion for class
certification.
LightFire is a St. Louis-based advertising and marketing support
company that has been serving business-to-consumer clients for over
40 years.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5XkkK6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Unredacted Version of Class Cert Must Be Sealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA ALEY, individually
and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly
situated, v. LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS, LLC, Case No.
5:22-cv-00330-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne Nardacci
entered an order that the redacted version of the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification shall appear for public inspection
on ECF and that the unredacted version of the same shall remain
sealed until further order of the Court.
A confidentiality order having been entered in this matter on Dec.
7, 2022, and having reviewed the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and said motion containing confidential information
covered by the order.
LightFire is a St. Louis-based advertising and marketing support
company that has been serving business-to-consumer clients for over
40 years.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MGg09s at no extra
charge.[CC]
LINCARE INC: Morris Allowed Leave to File Reply
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morris v. Lincare, Inc.,
Case No. 8:22-cv-02048 (M.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 06, 2022), the Hon.
Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywel entered an endorsed order granting
the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file reply.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
Lincare is a provider of oxygen and other respiratory therapy
services to patients in the home.[CC]
LIVE CONSTRUCTION: Lata Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL ADRIAN YAMBA LATA and JAIRO DANILO CHUQUITARCO CHICAIZA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIVE
CONSTRUCTION CORP. and ANTHONY LOPEZ, as an individual, Case No.
1:24-cv-05981 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2024) seeks to recover damages
for the Defendants' alleged violations of state and federal wage
and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment at Live
Construction as well as seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems
appropriate.
The Plaintiffs were regularly required to work approximately 61.5
hours per week from in or around November 2022 until in or around
May 2023. They were paid by Defendants approximately $34.00 per
hour from in or around November 2022 until in or around May 2023.
They were paid up to their first 40 hours of work at their regular
hourly rate and were paid for overtime at the rate of
time-and-a-half only for approximately 5 hours in excess of 40 per
week.
LIVE CONSTRUCTION CORP. is a concrete subcontractor based in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Katelyn Marie Schillaci, Esq.
James Patrick Peter O'Donnell, Esq.
Roman M. Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
LIVE NATION: Faces Jacobson Suit Over Ticket Sales Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
James R. Jacobson individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Live Nation Entertarinment, Inc. and
TicketMaster L.L.C., Case No. 1:24-cv-06538 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29,
2024) is a class action lawsuit arising from the Live Nation's
unlawful exclusive, anticompetitive and tying of promotion services
to ticket sales results in monopolistic profits as they collect
both upstream revenue from the promotion of concerts and events, as
well as downstream revenue from primary and secondary ticketing
sales.
Live Nation and its wholly owned subsidiary, TicketMaster, have
used its power and influence to amass market power in virtually
every aspect of the live music ecosystem. This has given Live
Nation and TicketMaster the opportunity to freeze innovation and
bend the industry to their own benefit.
While this may be a boon to Live Nation’s bottom line, there is a
real cost to Americans. Today, Live Nation possesses and routinely
exercises control over which artists perform, the event dates, and
the venues selected. Through TicketMaster, Live Nation exclusively
controls the primary purchase price and fees fans will pay to
simply obtain a ticket. Live Nation's monopolistic control of the
industry causes a loss of dynamism and growth that unfettered
competition fosters, the lawsuit says.
Mr. Jacobson is an individual who enjoys music, especially when
performed live. One of Jacobson's favorite bands is known as Dead &
Company. Dead & Company is an American rock band that formed in
2015 with a lineup of former Grateful Dead members including Bob
Weir and Mickey Hart, along with John Mayer on guitar and vocals.
According to its 2023 securities filings, Live Nation is the
"largest live entertainment company in the world," the "largest
producer of live music concerts in the world," and "the world's
leading live entertainment ticketing sales and marketing company,"
and it owns, operates, leases, has equity interest in, or has
exclusive booking rights and/or significant influence over 373
venues globally and more than 265 in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Lovell, Esq.
Christopher M. McGrath, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
500 5th Avenue, Suite 2440
New York, NY 10110
Telephone: (212) 608-1900
E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
- and -
Edward W. Cochran, Esq.
20030 Marchmont Road
Shaker Hts., OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 577-4545
E-mail: edward@edwcochran.com
- and -
Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
SCHNEIDER, SMELTZ SPEITH BELL, LLP
1375 E. Ninth Street, Suite 900
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 696-4200
E-mail: tconnick@sssb-law.com
- and -
George W. Cochran, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE W. COCHRAN
1981 Crossfield Circle
Kent, OH 44240
Telephone: (330) 607-2187
E-mail: lawchrist@gmail.com
- and -
Edward A. Proctor, Esq.
4100 Embassy Parkway, Suite 200
Akron, OH 44333
Telephone: (330) 396-7900
Facsimile :(330) 396-7901
E-mail: eproctor@kimassociateslaw.com
LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Gibbs Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFERY GIBBS, TOBY HOY,
and SHARON MCCULLAGH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. LIVEFREE EMERGENCY RESPONSE, INC. d/b/a
MEDIBUTTON, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
4:23-cv-00170-BLW (D. Idaho), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying this case as a class action.
LiveFree is a manufacturer of personal safety and emergency
assistance products for the elderly.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2bNtNz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 E Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Fact Discovery in Jenkins Due Jan. 21, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas Jenkins v. City of
Los Angeles et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01056-FMO-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order that:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed no Jan. 21, 2025
later than:
-- All expert discovery shall be completed by: April 8, 2025
-- The parties must serve their Initial Feb. 4, 2025
Expert Witness Disclosures no later than:
-- Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures shall Mar. 7, 2025
be served no later than:
-- The parties shall complete their settlement Jan. 21, 2025
conference before a private mediator no
later than:
-- Any motion for class certification shall May 8, 2025
be filed no later than:
Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation’s film and television industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SGs0lQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 17, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Civelli, et al., v. LUMEN
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01739 (D. Or., Filed
Nov. 24, 2023), the Hon. Judge Adrienne Nelson entered an order
-- The deadline for submission of plaintiffs' March 17, 2025
motion for class certification is:
-- The deadline for submission of Defendants' May 6, 2025
response to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification is:
-- The deadline for submission of plaintiffs' June 3, 2025
reply in support of motion for class
certification is:
-- The deadline to complete fact discovery is: Aug. 29, 2025
-- The deadline to exchange initial expert Sept. 30, 2025
reports is:
-- The deadline to exchange rebuttal expert Oct. 28, 2025
reports is:
-- The deadline to complete expert discovery Dec. 1, 2025
is:
-- The deadline to file dispositive Jan. 13, 2026
motions is:
-- The deadline to file the joint ADR Jan. 20, 2026
report is:
The suit alleges contract related violations.
Lumen is an American telecommunications company headquartered in
Monroe, Louisiana, which offers communications, network services,
security, cloud solutions, voice and managed services through its
fiber optic and copper networks, as well as its data centers and
cloud computing services.[CC]
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Class Settlement in Davis Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN DAVIS, et al., v.
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-11060-NGE-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Nancy Edmunds
entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action
settlement, maintaining class certification for settlement
purposes, approving form and manner of settlement notice,
preliminarily approving plan of allocation, and scheduling a date
for a final approval hearing.
1. For purposes of Settlement, and pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court
modifies the previously certified Class Period as follows.
The
Court makes no other modifications to the certified class.
The
"Settlement Class" shall be defined as:
"All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan,
at any time between Apr. 30, 2014 through the date of entry
of
this Preliminary Approval Order.
2. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Scott E. Vollmar, Cory L.
Harris,
and Bobby R. Garrett, III, as Class Representatives for the
Settlement Class, and Capozzi Adler, P.C., as Class Counsel
for
the Settlement Class.
3. Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement – The
Settlement
Agreement is hereby preliminarily approved as fair,
reasonable,
and adequate. This Court preliminarily finds that:
a) The Settlement was negotiated vigorously and at arm’s
length
by Defense Counsel, on the one hand, and Plaintiffs and
Class
Counsel on behalf of the Settlement Class, on the other
hand,
including during a settlement conference conducted by
Magistrate Judge Stafford on May 3, 2024;
b) The amount of the Settlement ($2,900,000) is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, taking into account the costs,
risks, and delay of litigation, trial, and appeal.
4. Final Approval Hearing -- A hearing is scheduled for July 7,
2025
This Action involves claims for alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), with respect to
the Magna Group of Companies Retirement Savings Plans
Magna International manufactures auto parts.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xFpzgN at no extra
charge.[CC]
MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC: Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKLIN HENRIQUEZ, ERLIN SALINAS, and ALEX PADILLA, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC,
LLC, LEGADO BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and HECTOR GUSTAVO
SANDOVAL, Case No. 1:24-cv-01511 (E.D. Va., Aug. 28, 2024) is a
class action lawsuit for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, workplace
fraud and worker misclassification under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, the Virginia Overtime Act, and
the Virginia Wage Payment Law.
THE suit seeks all available relief to remedy Defendants
underpayment and misclassification of Plaintiffs. Specifically,
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs
their legally mandated wages in violation of the state and federal
laws.
The Plaintiffs were employed as a construction worker in Virginia.
Defendant Manganaro was a joint employer of Plaintiffs with
Defendants Legado Construction and Hector Gustavo Sandoval.
Balfour Beatty was the general contractor responsible for the
construction of a pair or mixed-use retail and residential units
known as Hazel and Azure at National Landing, located at 3030-3130
Potomac Avenue in Alexandria, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel Nadas, Esq.
Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
1201 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200K
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: 202-899-2991
E-mail: rnadas@hfajustice.com
- and -
Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
1100 N. Glebe Rd. Suite 1010
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (703) 665-9529
E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com
MAPLE LEAF: Faces Demaio Class Suit Over Text Message Sales Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE DEMAIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAPLE LEAF FARMS, INC., Case No.
CACE-24-011245 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Aug. 7, 2024) is an action
for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations
of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, in direct contravention of the Caller
ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic
Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and
in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to
recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving
telephone calls.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller
ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of
receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text
message
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls, and she resides
in Broward County, Florida.
Maple is foreign corporation, which sells various goods to persons
throughout the country through its online store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq
SOCIAL JUSTICE COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709 5744
Facsimile: (866) 893 0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollection.com
MARATHON CHEESE: Settlement in Ackley Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARRIE ACKLEY, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MARATHON CHEESE
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-00232-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge
James Peterson entered an order that:
1. The renewed motion to certify the class and collective and
preliminarily approve the settlement agreement, is granted.
2. The court certifies the following collective and class:
FLSA Collective:
"All hourly-paid production employees employed by Defendant
between April 26, 2019, and April 26, 2022, as identified in
Exhibit A to this Agreement and who file a Consent to Join
Form
within 45 calendar days of the postmark date on the Notice
Packet."
Wisconsin Class:
"All hourly-paid production employees employed by Defendant
in
Wisconsin between April 26, 2020, and April 26, 2022, as
identified in Exhibit A to this Agreement and who do not file
a
Request to Exclude within 45 calendar days of the postmark
date
on the Notice Packet."
3. The court approves Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as class counsel.
4. Marathon Cheese Corporation may have until Sept. 6, 2024, to
provide the claims administrator with the names and
last-known
addresses of all class and collective members.
5. The claims administrator may have until Sept. 20, 2024, to
send
out the class notices after class counsel makes the changes
identified in this order. The notices should give members 45
days to opt in to the collective, opt out of the class, or
file
an objection.
6. The parties may have until Dec 6, 2024, to file a motion for
final approval and a motion for fees and costs. Marathon
Cheese
Corporation may have until Dec. 13, 2024, to object to the
service award. Any reply by Ackley is due by Dec. 18, 2024.
7. The court will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 17, 2025, in
Courtroom 260 at 2:00 p.m.
Marathon Cheese is a leader in cheese packaging.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SD8uuM at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARIO'S AIR: Bid to Extend Deadlines in Germain Suit OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Germain v. Mario's Air
Conditioning and Heating, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-00671 (M.D. Fla.,
Filed March 27, 2023), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the
joint "motion to extend deadlines" is granted.
-- Discovery is due on or before: Jan. 17, 2025
-- Dispositive motions are due on or before: Feb. 21, 2025
-- Class certification is due on or before: Feb. 11, 2025
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).[CC]
MARS WRIGLEY: Court Narrows Claims in Frias Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL FRIAS, JESSICA
AVILEZ AND ROY CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MARS WRIGLEY CONFECTIONERY US LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-04422-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered
an order granting in part and denying in part Mars's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
-- Mars's motion to dismiss is granted as to Plaintiffs' fraud and
AGM claims, which are dismissed with prejudice.
-- The motion is denied as to Plaintiffs' GBL sections 349 and 350
claims. By Sept. 11, 2024, the parties shall jointly submit a
proposed briefing schedule for their anticipated motions for
class
certification and summary judgment. By separate order, the
Court
shall refer the case to a magistrate judge for settlement.
-- The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF
Nos. 22 and 30.
Because the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded violations of GBL
sections 349 and 350, Mars's motion to dismiss Count I is denied.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the
Defendant, alleging that Mars deceptively marketed their Combos
stuffed snacks as containing a "[f]illing made with REAL CHEESE"
when it in fact uses predominantly "vegetable fats and cheese
byproducts." The Plaintiffs allege (1) violations of New York
General Business Law ("GBL");(2) fraud; and (3) violations of the
New York Agriculture and Markets Law ("AGM".
Mars manufactures and markets Cheddar Cheese Combos, a "cracker
tube" snack product "stuffed" with a filling.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9l8yGu at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARYLAND: Court Narrows Claims in T.G. Suit
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.G., by his next friend
BEVERLY SCHULTERBRANDT, et al., v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01433-MJM (D. Md.), the Hon.
Judge Matthew Maddox entered an order that:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is
granted
in part and denied in part;
2. Counts III and IV of the Amended Complaint are dismissed
without
prejudice;
3. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend by Interlineation their Motion
for
Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel is
granted;
4. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of
Class Counsel, as amended, is closed, subject to reopening;
5. Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel
is
granted;
6. Mitchell Y. Mirviss of Venable LLP and Leslie Seid Margolis,
Luciene Marie Parsley, and Megan Rector Berger of Disability
Rights Maryland, Inc. are appointed as interim class counsel
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3);
7. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and Motion to
Stay
are denied as moot;
Maryland Department of Human Services is the state's primary social
services provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oHwDkh at no extra
charge.[CC]
MAYAN LLC: Thompson Sues Over Withheld Tips & Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMPSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. A MAYAN, LLC T/A MAMA TIGRE, Case No. 1:24-cv-01495
(E.D. Va., Aug. 26, 2024) alleges that the Defendant perpetrated a
payroll scheme resulting in its unlawful withholding of tips and
wages earned by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated waiters,
barbacks, bartenders, and other employees performing customer
facing customarily tipped employment duties within MT's Mama Tigre
Restaurant, in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Virginia Wage Payment Act.
The suit contends that MT failed to pay the Named Plaintiff and the
FLSA Class Members at the FLSA at an hourly rate at least equal to
the Federal Minimum Wage rate of $7.25 per hour for all hours the
Named Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members worked each week. MT
unlawfully took, deducted, and withheld earned tip wages Named
Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members received from MT's customers
while carrying out their employment duties, says the suit.
This action seeks to recover the earned and unpaid wages,
unlawfully withheld earned tips, statutory liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees and costs on behalf of Named Plaintiff and all
Class Members. The Plaintiff also seeks recovery of damages arising
from MT's unlawful retaliatory termination of Named Plaintiff's
employment in violation of Virginia law.
MT employed Named Plaintiff as a waiter to serve food and beverages
to MT's customers within MT's Mama Tigre Restaurant during the
period of October 2023, until the date MT terminated the Named
Plaintiff's employment on Dec. 23, 2023.
Mama Tigre is a Mexican restaurant infused with an array of spices
from India.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
MCLANE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Prado Suit Amended to Nov. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO PRADO, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. MCLANE/SUNEAST, INC., a Texas Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-01220-JLS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Josephine Staton entered an order granting stipulation to
continue deadline to file motion for class certification:
The amended Scheduling Order is as follows:
Event Prior Deadline Amended
Deadline
Last Day to File a Motion to Sept. 20,
2024
Consolidate
Last Day to File a Motion for Aug. 23, 2024 Nov. 22,
2024
Class Certification:
Last Day to File an Opposition Oct. 4, 2024 Jan. 10,
2025
to Motion for Class
Certification:
Last Day to File a Reply to Nov. 1, 2024 Feb. 7, 2025
Motion for Class Certification:
Fact Discovery Cutoff: Feb. 21, 2025 May 23, 2025
Last Day to File Motions March 7, 2025 June 6, 2025
(Excluding Daubert Motions and
all other Motions in Limine):
Last Day to Serve Initial Expert March 7, 2025 June 6, 2025
Reports:
Last Day to Conduct Settlement April 25, 2025 Aug. 1, 2025
Proceedings:
Final Pretrial Conference July 25, 2025 Oct. 14,
2025
McLane/Suneast offers food services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RqoImb at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2670: StarKist Settlement Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-md-02670-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Dana Sabraw entered an order granting preliminarily
approval of the StarKist Settlement and Lion Companies Settlement:
(1) certifying, for settlement purposes, the following
Settlement
Class:
"All persons and entities who reside in one of the States
described in paragraphs 113(b) to 113(gg) of the Fourth
Consolidated Amended Complaint, specifically Arizona,
Arkansas,
California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Hawaii,
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon,
Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, who
indirectly
purchased Packaged Tuna in cans or pouches smaller than
forty
ounces for end consumption and not for resale, produced by
any
the Defendant or any current or former subsidiary or
affiliate
thereof, or any co-conspirator during the period from June
1,
2011 to July 1, 2015."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the opt-outs
previously
so ordered by the Court, and included in the Settlement
Class
are the three individually named Illinois plaintiffs.
(2) appointing Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as
Settlement Class Counsel.
(3) appointing JND as the Claims Administrator.
(4) appointing the named plaintiffs in the Class Order as Class
Representatives for settlement purposes.
(5) The Court finds the StarKist Settlement Agreement and Lion
Companies Settlement Agreement have been negotiated at
arm's-
length.
(6) The Court finds the StarKist Settlement Agreement and Lion
Companies Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.
(7) The Court approves the use of $1,000,000 of the StarKist
Settlement and up to $200,000 of the Lion Companies
Settlement
funds ($1,200,000 total) for notice costs per the Settlement
Agreements. See StarKist Settlement Agreement.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bSS0RO at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Settlement in Barton v. Mattel Wins Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barton v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00670 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey
Crawford entered an order granting motion for preliminary
certification of a settlement class and approval of class action
settlement:
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto
Rico, and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the Class Period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (by gift) an RNPS, or
(b)
have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a cash
fund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumers at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees;
(iv) Plaintiff's counsel; and
(v) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class,
as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request id finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints class counsel:
Demet Basar, Esq.
James Eubank, Esq.
Paul Evans, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES
P.C., 218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (800) 898-2034
E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com
The court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renee Wray.
The Court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as
Settlement Administrator.
The Barton case is consolidated in MDL 2903 United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2903) re: Fisher-Price Rock
'N Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, and products liability
litigation.
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zehkg3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Settlement in Black v. Mattel Wins Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Linda Black v. Mattel,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01083 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting motion for preliminary
certification of a settlement class and approval of class action
settlement:
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto
Rico, and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the Class Period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (by gift) an RNPS, or
(b)
have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a cash
fund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumers at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees;
(iv) Plaintiff's counsel; and
(v) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class,
as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request id finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints class counsel:
Demet Basar, Esq.
James Eubank, Esq.
Paul Evans, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES
P.C., 218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (800) 898-2034
E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com
The court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renee Wray.
The Court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as
Settlement Administrator.
The Black case is consolidated in MDL 2903 United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2903) re: Fisher-Price Rock
'N Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, and products liability
litigation.
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i2s1Pi at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Settlement in Nabong v. Mattel Wins Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NABONG v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00668 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey
Crawford entered an order granting motion for preliminary
certification of a settlement class and approval of class action
settlement:
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto
Rico, and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the Class Period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (by gift) an RNPS, or
(b)
have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a cash
fund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumers at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees;
(iv) Plaintiff's counsel; and
(v) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class,
as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request id finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints class counsel:
Demet Basar, Esq.
James Eubank, Esq.
Paul Evans, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES
P.C., 218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (800) 898-2034
E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com
The court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renee Wray.
The Court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as
Settlement Administrator.
The Nabong case is consolidated in MDL 2903 United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2903) re: Fisher-Price Rock
'N Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, and products liability
litigation.
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UKTziJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Settlement in Pasternacki v. Fisher-Price Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pasternacki v. Fisher
Price, Inc. et al. (FISHER-PRICE RNPS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION+, Case No. 1:19-cv-00941
(W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order
granting motion for preliminary certification of a settlement class
and approval of class action settlement:
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto
Rico, and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the Class Period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (by gift) an RNPS, or
(b)
have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a cash
fund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumers at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees;
(iv) Plaintiff's counsel; and
(v) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class,
as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request id finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints class counsel:
Demet Basar, Esq.
James Eubank, Esq.
Paul Evans, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES
P.C., 218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (800) 898-2034
E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com
The court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renee Wray.
The Court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as
Settlement Administrator.
The Pasternacki case is consolidated in MDL 2903 United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2903) re:
Fisher-Price Rock 'N Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, and
products liability litigation.
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ez8wvR at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2903: Settlement in Hanson v. Fisher-Price Wins Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hanson v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01087 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey
Crawford entered an order granting motion for preliminary
certification of a settlement class and approval of class action
settlement:
The proposed settlement class consist of:
"All Persons in the United States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto
Rico, and all other United States territories and/or possessions
who, during the Class Period, (a) purchased (including to be
given
as a gift to another Person) or acquired (by gift) an RNPS, or
(b)
have an RNPS in their possession."
Excluded from the class are
(i) Persons who participated in the Recall and received a cash
fund;
(ii) Persons who purchased an RNPS for the sole purpose of
resale to consumers at wholesale or retail;
(iii) Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their legal
representatives, successors, assignees, officers,
directors
and employees;
(iv) Plaintiff's counsel; and
(v) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons or entities are not Settlement Class
Members
once they timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class,
as
provided in this Settlement Agreement, and once the exclusion
request id finally approved by the Court.
The Court appoints class counsel:
Demet Basar, Esq.
James Eubank, Esq.
Paul Evans, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES
P.C., 218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (800) 898-2034
E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com
The court appoints the following persons as class representatives
for the proposed settlement class: Elizabeth Alfaro, Emily Barton,
Linda Black, Luke Cuddy, Rebecca Drover, Megan Fieker, Karen
Flores, Nancy Hanson, Jena Huey, Samantha Jacoby, Megan Kaden,
Kerry Mandley, Cassandra Mulvey, Joshua Nadel, Melanie Nilius
Nowlin, Daniel Pasternacki, Jessie Poppe, Katherine Shaffer, Emily
Simmonds, Josie Willis and Renee Wray.
The Court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as
Settlement Administrator.
The Hanson case is consolidated in MDL 2903 United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2903) re: Fisher-Price Rock
'N Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, and products liability
litigation.
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will
suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis.
The Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising
and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that
Fisher Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YT3eA5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MERCK SHARP: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Denied
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
BALTIMORE ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-00828-GAM (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh will grant Plaintiff's motion
to amend, except as to withdrawal of the jury demand; and will deny
Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations.
The parties are still in a relatively early stage of litigation
before the end of fact discovery. Moreover, the data set needed to
identify fully insured health plans would allegedly not involve the
use of PBM data since this case does not involve prescription
drugs.
Judge McHugh said that he is unpersuaded by Merck's argument that
removing the exclusion creates an "intractable ambiguity."
In short, removing the exclusion does not alter the class
definition in the way that Merck claims, and sponsors of fully
insured health plans would still be excluded as class members.
Baltimore defines the class as:
"[A]ll entities that (i) are third-party payors that (ii) have
purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all
of
the purchase price of RotaTeq; (iii) for consumption by their
members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries
(iv)
in one of the Repealer Jurisdictions (v) after March 3, 2019,
and
(vi) do not fall within any of the two exclusion categories."
This is an antitrust class action alleging that Defendant Merck
Sharp & Dohme Corporation (Merck) has engaged in illegal conduct
that forecloses competition in a significant portion of the
rotavirus vaccine market.
Merck Sharp operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical
company.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mkH7WT at no extra
charge.[CC]
MERCY HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Shine Due Sept. 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY SHINE, Individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. MERCY HEALTH
NETWORK, INC. and MERCY MEDICAL CENTER-CLINTON, INC., Case No.
4:23-cv-00195-SHL-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Stephen Jackson
Jr. entered a scheduling conference order as follows:
1. A Jury Trial will be set to begin on March 9, 2026, at 9:00
a.m., before United States District Judge Stephen H. Locher,
in
the United States Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa. The parties
estimate trial will take 7 days.
2. A Final Pretrial Conference will be held on Feb. 25, 2026, at
11:00 a.m., in the United States Courthouse, Des Moines,
Iowa,
before United States District Judge Stephen H. Locher.
3. The parties must exchange initial disclosures by Sept. 20,
2024.
4. Motions to add parties must be filed by Nov. 25, 2024.
5. Motions for leave to amend pleadings must be filed by Nov.
25,
2024.
6. The Plaintiff must designate expert witnesses and disclose
their
written reports by April 11, 2025.
7. The Defendants must designate expert witnesses and disclose
their written reports by June 11, 2025.
8. The Plaintiff must designate rebuttal expert witnesses and
disclose their written reports by July 11, 2025.
9. Discovery must be completed by Aug. 11, 2025.
10. Motions for class certification and dispositive motions must
be
filed by Sept. 12, 2025.
Mercy Health is an American non-profit system of hospitals,
clinics, and health care facilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mvEoVw at no extra
charge.[CC]
MERIDIAN SERVICES: Finch Seeks Hourly Employees' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES FINCH, individually and for others similarly situated v.
MERIDIAN SERVICES GROUP, LLC f/k/a WORK MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-00082-TES (M.D. Ga., Aug. 27, 2024) seeks to recover the
unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to Finch and the
Kentucky Straight Time Employees for violations of the Kentucky
Wage and Hour Act.
Plaintiff Finch worked for Meridian as an hourly employee. He and
the Kentucky Straight Time Employees regularly worked more than 40
hours a week. But Meridian did not pay Finch and the Kentucky
Straight Time Employees overtime. Instead of paying overtime as
required by the KWHA, Meridian classified Finch and the Kentucky
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. Meridian also never paid him or the
Straight Time Employees on a "salary basis," says the Plaintiff.
The Putative Class of similarly situated employees is defined as:
"All current and former employees of Meridian Services Group,
LLC f/k/a Work Management, Inc. who worked in Kentucky and were
paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked (or "straight
time for overtime") at any time during the past 3 years
("Kentucky Straight Time Employees").
Meridian is a recruitment and staffing company that "serves over
100 clients in 30 states, including power generation companies, gas
and electric transmission & distribution companies, petrochemical
companies, EPC contractors, and equipment manufacturers."
Meridian "was formed in 2021 as a strategic merger of the
commercial business of High Bridge Associates, Inc. and Work
Management, Inc."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
P.O. Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, Texas 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cook Due April 24, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER L. COOK, d/b/a JL
Cook, JL Cook Sculptor, and SNAKEARTS.COM, v. META PLATFORMS, INC.,
F/K/A FACEBOOK, INC. Case No. 3:22-cv-02485-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin entered an order granting the
Parties' stipulation regarding an extension for class certification
and modification of the Schedule that:
1. The Parties shall complete substantial production of
documents
that Meta has agreed to produce as of Aug. 13, 2024 by Oct.
31,
2024.
2. The Parties shall complete fact discovery by March 6, 2025.
3. The Plaintiff shall file her Motion for Class Certification
(including expert reports or declarations in support thereof)
on
or before April 24, 2025.
4. The Defendant shall file their Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion
for Class Certification (including expert reports or
declarations in support thereof) on or before June 25, 2025.
5. The Plaintiff shall file her Reply in Support of Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification (including rebuttal expert
reports or declarations in support thereof) on or before
Aug.
20, 2025.
The Court is unlikely to grant further extensions to the case
schedule.
Meta owns and operates Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp,
among other products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=feM8Ri at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
- and -
Hrag A. Alexanian, Esq.
Jonathan L. Hardt, Esq.
James F. Mcdonough, Esq.
ROZIER HARDT MCDONOUGH PLLC
712 W. 14th Street, Suite C
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (210) 289-7541
E-mail: hrag.alexanian.com
hardt@rhmtrial.com
jim@rhmtrial.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Randi W. Singer, Esq.
Todd Larson, Esq.
David R. Singh, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
E-mail: randi.singer@weil.com
todd.larson@weil.com
david.singh@weil.com
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA WOOD, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02489-LTS-GWG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an order:
-- granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and
-- denying Defendant's motion to decertify the FLSA Collective.
The Court certifies the following classes:
(i) all individuals employed as a Field Organizer by the
Campaign
in California between the period Nov. 24, 2019, and March
31,
2020 ("California Class");
(ii) all individuals employed as a Field Organizer by the
Campaign
in New York between the period Nov. 24, 2019, and March 31,
2020 ("New York Class");
(iii) all individuals employed as a Field Organizer by the
Campaign
in Illinois between the period Nov. 24, 2019, and March 31,
2020 ("Illinois Class");
(iv) all individuals employed as a Field Organizer by the
Campaign
in North Carolina between the period Nov. 24, 2019, and
March
31, 2020 ("North Carolina Class");
(v) all individuals employed as a Field Organizer by the
Campaign
in Michigan between the period Nov. 24, 2019, and March 31,
2020 ("Michigan Class");
(vi) all individuals employed as a Field Organizer by the
Campaign
in Wisconsin between the period Nov. 24, 2019, and March
31,
2020 ("Wisconsin Class"); and
(vii) all individuals employed as a Field Organizer by the
Campaign
in Minnesota between the period Nov. 24, 2019, and March
31,
2020 ("Minnesota Class").
The Court appoints the following class representatives:
(i) Alexandra Marie Wheatley-Diaz, Robin Ceppos, and Nicholas
Coker as Class Representatives of the California Class;
(ii) Max Goldstein as Class Representative of the New York
Class;
(iii) Caelan Doherty as Class Representative of the Illinois
Class;
(iv) James Kyle Newman as the Class Representative of the North
Carolina Class;
(v) Lakisha Watson-Moore as the Class Representative of the
Michigan Class;
(vi) Tristan Angulo as Class Representative of the Wisconsin
Class;
and
(vii) Bridget Logan as Class Representative of the Minnesota
Class.
The Court appoints Outten & Golden LLP and Shavitz Law Group, P.A.
as class counsel.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden with respect
to the superiority requirement, as well as with respect to each of
the other Rule 23(a) and relevant Rule 23(b) factors
The Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, bring this collective and putative class action against
Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., asserting claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and state labor laws.
Michael Bloomberg is the Former mayor of New York and is a
candidate in the 2020 US presidential election. Find out more about
his bio and key issues.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zBbZ7z at no extra
charge.[CC]
MOHATRA INC: De la Torre Alleges Inaccessible Commercial Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. MOHATRA INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-23302 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 2024) is a class action suit
brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals seeking injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property,
its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the
businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida, that is
the subject of this Action. The subject Commercial Property is open
to the public. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial
Property and businesses located within the commercial property, to
include visits to the Commercial Property and business located
within the Commercial Property on or about June 30, 2024, and
encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected
his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property.
The Plaintiff plans to return to the Commercial Property within two
months of the filing of this Complaint, in order to avail himself
of the goods and services offered at the place of public
accommodation and check if it has been remediated of the ADA
violations he encountered. The Plaintiff found the Commercial
Property and the businesses named located within the Commercial
Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered
architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses
named located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of each of the premises.
The Plaintiff has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate
any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the
wrist. He has lower paraplegia, inhibits him from walking or
otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He is limited
in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to
walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Primary E-Mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary E-Mails: amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
aquezada@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
Primary E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
Secondary E-Mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
MOLLY FRANCIS: Zirus Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scott Zirus, v. Molly
Francis, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00507-RP-SH (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
class certification.
The suit challenges the unconstitutional conditions within the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice concerning excessive heat
conditions. This is an issue that has been litigated for well over
a decade and will continue to be a contested issue.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9r3fyU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
MONTE NIDO: Casey Bid to Appoint Class Counsel Nixed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY CASEY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. MONTE NIDO &
AFFILIATES HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-23119-KMW (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Jonathan Goodman entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Interim Lead Class
Counsel.
If an attorney competing for class counsel appointment appears in
the case, then the Plaintiffs may renew their motion. Any re-filed
motion must address the necessity of the requested appointment and
be accompanied by a proposed order.
At present, there are no other competing law firms seeking the
interim class counsel designation. Accordingly, at this nascent
stage in the litigation, it is not necessary to appoint interim
class counsel.
On Aug. 15, 2024, Casey and Bracco each filed a putative class
action stemming from the same data breach. Casey's Complaint
alleges that "cybercriminals had access to [Defendant]'s network
from Sept. 16, 2023 until Sept. 22, 2023," during which they had
"unrestricted access to current and former patients' [protected
health information]."
On Aug. 23, 2024, Casey and Bracco filed a joint motion asking
Judge Williams to consolidate their cases 'because the actions
involve common questions of law and fact as they arise out of the
same data breach involving Defendant that impacted Plaintiffs’
and the Class’s personal information."
Monte Nido provides eating disorder treatment, offering inpatient,
residential and day treatment programs for eating disorders.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yQ2ERl at no extra
charge.[CC]
MWB CORP: Fails to Pay Cook's OT Wages Under FLSA, Green Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MORRIS GREEN v. MWB CORP. D/B/A NEW BRITAIN INN, Case No.
2:24-cv-04458-MMB (E.D. Pa., Aug. 26, 2024) is a class action
contending that the Defendant has violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by improperly failing to
pay overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The
Plaintiff, however, did not receive any overtime compensation for
work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. By way of example,
on July 5, 2024, Defendant's manager Michael Carey texted Plaintiff
a handwritten pay stub indicating that the Plaintiff had worked
45.9 hours that week at a rate of $18 an hour resulting in gross
compensation for that week of $826.20. Had the Defendant properly
compensated the Plaintiff for his 5.9 hours of overtime that week,
the Plaintiff's gross compensation would have been $879.30, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff further brings an individual claim contending that
the Defendant violated the FLSA by terminating him in retaliation
for engaging in protected activity under the FLSA. Specifically,
the Plaintiff contends that Defendant terminated him shortly after
he made an internal complaint regarding Defendant's failure to pay
overtime compensation.
Mr. Green began his employment with the Defendant on June 17, 2024,
when he was hired for the position of Cook and worked under the
Defendant's manager Michael Carey.
MWB CORP. D/B/A NEW BRITAIN INN is an American restaurant based in
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Johannes Hoffman, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 273-1054
Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
E-mail: jhoffman@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
NEW YORK, NY: Bid for Summary Judgment in Allen Class Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE BOWEN ALLEN, et
al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03786-JMF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse Furman entered an order granting
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment:
-- The Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed -- in the case of their
disparate treatment claims under the NYCHRL and their breach of
contract claims, without prejudice to refiling in state court.
-- Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and
both
Sides' Daubert motions are denied as moot.
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs' federal claims of
discrimination (and some of their parallel claims under state and
federal law) fail as matter of law.
Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs could meet their burden at the
first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework — which they cannot
— their disparate treatment claims under Title VII and the ADEA
would, and do, fail at the third step. In either event, Defendants
are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ disparate
treatment claims under federal law.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' disparate impact claims under both the
NYSHRL and the NYCHRL and their disparate treatment claims under
the NYSHRL are dismissed for the same reasons that their
corresponding federal
claims were dismissed.
On December 4, 2017, Plaintiffs filed complaints with the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging race
and/or age discrimination and, on or about September 15, 2018,
received right-to-sue letters.
On December 30, 2021, Plaintiffs Birdsong and Richardson moved to
certify a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=scild1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORDIC NATURALS: Parties Seek April 15, 2025 Class Cert Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL CALDWELL, and
JEANNE MATTHEWS and AMANDA HATFIELD and JESSICA NICOLE DECOURSEY,
themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NORDIC NATURALS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02818-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter the Parties' new proposed deadlines
as follows:
1. Fact discovery shall close on March 26, 2025.
2. The Plaintiffs' deadline to serve expert disclosures and
expert
reports is March 26, 2025.
3. The Defendant's deadline to serve expert disclosures and
expert
reports is April 25, 2025.
4. The Defendant's deadline to file Daubert motions is May 22,
2025.
5. The Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendant's
Daubert motion on June 20, 2025.
6. The Defendant shall file its reply in further support of
Daubert
motions on June 27, 2025.
7. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file Daubert motions is June 6,
2025.
8. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Motion for Class
Certification is April 15, 2025.
9. The Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification on May 22, 2025.
10. The Defendant may file a Motion for Summary Judgment on May
22,
2025.
11. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in further support of
Motion for Class Certification on June 27, 2025.
12. Hearing on Daubert motions and Motion for Class Certification
shall take place on July 24, 2025.
The Parties filed the stipulation because the Plaintiff Cheryl
Caldwell sought to add three additional representative plaintiffs
for an Illinois Subclass, a Florida Subclass and a New York
Subclass, which the Parties agreed would expand the scope of
discovery in this matter, and require additional time before class
certification.
On May 13, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation and
[Proposed Order] to Amend Complaint and Scheduling Order, seeking a
120 day extension of inter alia the discovery, expert disclosures,
and class certification deadlines set in the Court's original
Scheduling Order.
Nordic Naturals sells vitamins and supplements including animal
oils, fish oils, and marine animal oils.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4sy6b5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert Abiri, Esq.
CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 593-9095
Facsimile: (213) 785-2899
E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com
- and -
Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2580
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 751-5948
E-mail: rglezakos@treehouselaw.com
bheikali@treehouselaw.com
jnassir@treehouselaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Caroline E. Oks, Esq.
Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
Andrew J. Marino, Esq.
Christina M. LaBruno, Esq.
GIBBONS P.C.
One Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 596-4500
E-mail: coks@gibbonslaw.com
mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com
amarino@gibbonslaw.com
clabruno@gibbonslaw.com
NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Bolch Suit Over Mismanaged Foster Care System
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jameson C., minor, by next friend STEVEN BOLCH; Sara M., Leah M.,
Harry M., minors, by next friend KARI DANFORTH; Megan S. and Chloe
S., minors, by next friend DARIA BARAZANDEH; Annie W., Justin B.,
Morgan G., minors, by next friend, VERONIKA MONTELEONE, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROY COOPER in his
official capacity as the Governor of North Carolina, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, KODY KINSLEY in his
official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of
Health and Human Services, SUSAN OSBORN in her official capacity as
Assistant Secretary for County Operations of the Division of Social
Services, MARK PAYNE as the Director of the Division of Health
Service Regulation, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, MECKLENBURG COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, GASTON
COUNTY, and GASTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Case No.
3:24-cv-00783 (W.D.N.C., Aug. 27, 2024) is a class action suit
arising from the Defendants' ongoing failures placing foster
children at significant risk of serious harm in violation of
Plaintiffs' rights under federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
According to Kody Kinsley, the Secretary of DHHS, "in any given
week, dozens of children in foster care are living in emergency
departments and child welfare offices. And among the children who
struggle to find an appropriate placement that have been referred
to the department for additional help and coordination, a quarter
of these children have been moved fifty times or more." DHHS's
placement deficit is compounded by its services deficit. More than
60% of counties "have zero children or adolescent psychiatrists."
North Carolina's foster care system has been operating in a state
of crisis for years. The foster care population is increasing while
foster home capacity decreases. Children are placed into
institutions at twice the national average, are shuttled between
placements with disturbing frequency, and do not receive adequate
services or necessary medical treatment or education. Caseworkers
are not receiving adequate training or support, they cannot manage
the crushing caseloads, morale is low, and turnover is outpacing
recruitment. State leadership predicted, correctly, that this
crisis would invite "a massive class action lawsuit," says the
suit.
When the State takes a child into custody, it becomes responsible
for the child's safety and wellbeing. The North Carolina Department
of Health and Human Services and the 100 county departments of
social services share responsibility for North Carolina's foster
children, and they share responsibility for the State's continuous
and systematic failure to protect and provide for North Carolina's
foster children.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher J. Blake, Esq.
D. Martin Warf, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH, LLP
301 Hillsborough Street, Suite 1400
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 329-3800
Facsimile: (919) 329-3799
E-mail: chris.blake@nelsonmullins.com
martin.warf@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq.
David Baloche, Esq.
Laura Welikson, Esq.
Robyn Goldberg, Esq.
A BETTER CHILDHOOD
355 Lexington Avenue, Floor 16
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 795-4456
Facsimile: (212) 692-0415
E-mail: mlowry@abetterchildhood.org
dbaloche@abetterchildhood.org
lwelikson@abetterchildhood.org
rgoldberg@abetterchildhood.org
NRA GROUP: Chamberlain's Bid for Class Certification Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUTUMN CHAMBERLAIN, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NRA GROUP,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00281-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Karoline
Mehalchick entered an order as follows:
1. Chamberlain's motion for class certification is granted. The
following litigation class is certified pursuant to Federal
Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
"All persons within the United States to whom NRA or its
agent's
and/or employee's sent a debt collection text message between
Nov. 19, 2020 and Feb. 16, 2021, after said person had
previously messaged "STOP," "Stop" or "stop" to NRA.
2. The Court approves the following entity as Representative
Plaintiff of the Class pursuant to Rule 23(a)(3), and finds
that
these Representative Plaintiff's claims are typical of the
claims of the Class: Amber Chamberlain. The claims
Chamberlain
and absent class members rely on the same legal theories and
arise from the same alleged conduct by the NRA, namely,
sending
unsolicited text messages after being sent a "STOP" text,
allegedly a violation of the FDCPA.
3. After reviewing the Declarations of Stephen Taylor and Joshua
Markovits, the court also approves the following law firm as
Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g), and finds that these
Class
Counsel have and will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the Class: Lemberg Law, LLC.
4. The parties are directed to meet and confer on the subject of
the best practicable notice to the class. The parties shall
submit to the court their proposed notice with 21 days of
this
Order, on or before March 13, 2024. The parties shall be
mindful
that their proposed notice must comport with the requirements
outlined in Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(i–vii).
NRA is an accounts receivable management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=595mTU at no extra
charge.[CC]
OLDS PRODUCTS: Seeks Leave to File Surreply Brief in Quiroga Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMON QUIROGA, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OLDS PRODUCTS CO.
OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00390-SCD (E.D. Wis.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for leave to
file the attached surreply brief in opposition to Plaintiff Raymon
Quiroga's Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification.
Olds deserves an opportunity to respond to the new arguments raised
in Quiroga's reply brief. In his moving brief, Quiroga argued that
Rule 23's numerosity requirement has been satisfied because "[Olds]
employed more than 100 hourly-paid, non-exempt Production Employees
in positions similar to that held by [Quiroga] in the State of
Wisconsin."
Olds Products produces and sells mustards.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G7HByf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert S. Driscoll, Esq.
Matthew R. DeLange, Esq.
REINHART LAW
E-mail: rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com
mdelange@reinhartlaw.com
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pauli Bid for Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES PAULI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN
OUTLET, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Mae D'Agostino entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23.
The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this
Memorandum-Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that
his state law claims share common facts with, or arise from the
same course of events as, the claims of each putative class
member.
Rather, the record before the Court strongly suggests that
resolution of the issue whether Plaintiff or any Ollie's CTLs in
New York State were ever entitled to overtime wages under the NYLL
would necessarily entail an analysis of each CTL's individual job
experiences to determine his or her qualification for exempt
status.
On March 22, 2022, Plaintiff James Pauli, individually and as
representative of the proposed Class, filed this putative class
action against his former employer, Defendant Ollie's Bargain
Outlet, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and New York Labor Law.
The Defendant is a bargain retail chain offering "closeout
merchandise and excess inventory."
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BlzWI4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
The White House
7030 East Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
- and -
James E. Murphy, Esq.
Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
Ladonna Lusher, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
The Defendant is represented by:
Heather Z. Steele, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS
Two Logan Square, 12th Floor
100 North 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
- and -
Kathleen Mcleod Caminiti, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS
430 Mountain Avenue, Suite 303
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
OUTPATIENT SERVICES: Edwards Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
UFARCIA EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OUTPATIENT SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a HCA HOUSTON
HEALTHCARE WEST f/k/a WEST HOUSTON MEDICAL CENTER, Case No.
4:24-cv-03263 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 30, 2024) is a civil action,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and
former employees, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Portal-to-Portal Act (collectively, the "FLSA") seeking damages for
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one half the regular
rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day
workweek.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a Rule 23 class action
asserting state law claims for unpaid straight-time compensation
owed at a contractual hourly rate, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated hourly-paid nurses and technicians who
worked at HCA at any time during the state statutory period before
this Complaint was filed up to the time of class certification who,
as a result of Defendant's practice of deducting meal breaks from
each shift worked and not paying for the same, did not receive all
of the straight time pay at their contractual hourly rate to which
they were entitled in the weeks of their employment in which said
nurses and technicians worked 40 hours or less.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant on or about
mid-August 2019. The Plaintiff is a former employee. Plaintiff
stopped working for Defendant on or about November 26, 2023. The
Plaintiff was paid on a hourly basis of approximately $18.75.
HCA employs thousands of healthcare workers throughout the State of
Texas. On information and belief, HCA has employed thousands of
nurses and technicians during the applicable FLSA three-year
period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
PAAL REALTY: Faces Cheli ADA Suit Over Architectural Barriers
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLENE CHELI, an Individual v. PAAL REALTY LLC, a New Jersey
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-08891 (D.N.J., Aug. 30,
2024) sues the Defendant for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
Ms. Cheli is a staunch advocate of the ADA. Since becoming mobility
impaired (and having to fully rely on the use of her wheelchair to
ambulate) she has dedicated her life to the elimination of
accessibility discrimination so that she, and others like her, may
have full and equal enjoyment of all public accommodations without
fear of discrimination and repeated exposure to architectural
barriers.
Ms. Cheli encounters architectural barriers at many of the places
that she visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as
parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for
granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or
implemented, can be arduous and even dangerous to those in
wheelchairs, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities - as defined by
and pursuant to the ADA. Ms. Cheli has been diagnosed with
facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy and therefore has a physical
impairment that substantially limits many of her major life
activities including, but not limited to, not being able to walk,
stand, reach, or lift. Ms. Cheli requires, at all times, the use of
a wheelchair to ambulate.
Paal owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation, in this
instance a shopping center/plaza, alleged by the Plaintiff to be
operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
Shadinger Law, LLC
717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
Vineland, NJ 08360
Telephone: (609) 319-5399
E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com
PAMELA GORRIE: Stadtler's Bid for Summary Judgment Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stadtler Trust 2015 Trust,
et al., v. Pamela Gorrie, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00314-DWL (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Dominic Lanza entered an order that:
1. The Stadtler Parties' motion for summary judgment on the
Gorrie
Parties' counterclaims and partial summary judgment on their
own
claims is granted in part and denied in part.
2. Houchin's motion for summary judgment on the Gorrie Parties'
third-party claims is granted in part and denied in part.
3. The Gorrie Parties' motion for partial summary judgment on
the
Stadtler Parties' claims and Houchin's third-party
counterclaims
is granted in part and denied in part.
Houchin has failed to establish that Gorrie does not qualify as a
third-party beneficiary who could seek enforcement of the
indemnification provision.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JSfDro at no extra
charge.[CC]
PATHFINDER SOFTWARE: Stauffer Class Settlement Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISYN STAUFFER, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. INNOVATIVE
HEIGHTS FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00046-MAB
(S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Mark Beatty entered a final approval
order of class action settlement with Pathfinder Software, LLC.
In this Court's Preliminary Approval Order, the Court
preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement, and for settlement
purposes, certified the following Class after finding that it met
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), as follows:
A. The 2,179 persons specifically identified in the No-Claim
Class List who have been identified by name and contact
information during discovery as having scanned one or more
fingers into a CenterEdge system in Illinois at any time from
April 29, 2014, through the Preliminary Approval Date,
March 20, 2024; and
B. All persons who are on the Claims-Made Class List and who,
at any time from April 29, 2014, through the Preliminary
Approval Date, March 20, 2024, scanned one or more fingers
into a CenterEdge computer system at any of the following
locations:
Sky Zone in Aurora, IL
Sky Zone in Joliet, IL
Sky Zone in Elmhurst, IL
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Court and staff to
whom this case is assigned, any immediate family members
of the Court or its staff, and any person who timely and
properly opts out of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to
the procedures set forth therein.
The Court now confirms final certification of the following
Settlement Class for purposes of entering this Final Approval
Order, appointment of Plaintiff Madisyn Stauffer as Class
Representative for the Settlement Class, and the appointment of
Class Counsel as described in the Preliminary Approval Order.
The Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff Madisyn Stauffer, in
both her individual and representative capacities and Defendant
CenterEdge provides for the Settlement of the claims in this Action
against CenterEdge on behalf of the Class Representative and the
Settlement Class Members, subject to approval by this Court of its
terms and to the entry of this Final Approval Order and
accompanying judgment.
CenterEdge has agreed to the certification of the Settlement Class
for settlement purposes only. A Final Approval Hearing was held
before this Court on August 21, 2024, to consider, among other
things, whether the Settlement should be approved by this Court as
fair, reasonable and adequate, whether Class Counsel’s request
for approval of attorneys’ fees and expenses is reasonable and
should be approved by this Court, and whether Class
Representative’s request for approval of a service payment is
reasonable and should be approved by this Court.
Innovative Heights is a recreational facility/trampoline park in
Fairview Heights, Illinois.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B4K2L7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PAYCOR INC: Must Respond to Johns Class Cert Bid by Sept. 17
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johns v. Paycor, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00264 (S.D. Ill., Filed March 11, 2020), the Hon.
Judge David W. Dugan entered an order regarding the Defendant's
motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' class
certification motion, to which Plaintiffs have filed a response in
opposition.
-- The Defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion for Class
Certification is due in 20 days, i.e. , on Sept. 17, 2024.
-- As it did twice previously, the Court has scheduled a Status
Conference for Sept. 25, 2024, to discuss scheduling and
discovery
deadlines.
-- Notably, though, prior to the stay of the case, the operative
scheduling and discovery orders contemplated 21 days and 24
days
for Defendant to file its Response.
-- Despite those shorter deadlines, the Court ultimately granted
Defendant 60 days to conduct third-party discovery and to file
its
Response after the stay.
-- The Court's allowance of 60 days was generous, and there is no
question that a further extension of the deadline to 90 days
would
be a bridge too far in light of these circumstances and
Plaintiffs' arguments.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud.
Paycor operates as a software company. The Company provides
cloud-based on-boarding, human resources, payroll, and time-keeping
software solutions.[CC]
PLAID PANTRY: Ensign Class Suit Removed From State Court to D. Or.
------------------------------------------------------------------
MADELINE KAY, ALEX ALANIZ, MATTHEW ENSIGN, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated customers v. PLAID PANTRY, INC.,
PLAID PANTRIES, INC., Case No. 24CV36248 (Filed July 31, 2024), was
removed from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the
County of Multnomah to the United States District Court of Oregon
on the Aug. 29, 2024.
The United States District Court of Oregon Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-01440-SI to the proceedings.
The civil action seeks equitable relief, an order certifying the
case as a class action, and reasonable costs and attorney fees and
expenses. The complaint asserts a claim for violations of ORS
807.750(2) and ORS 807.750(3), arising from the alleged swiping of
customer driver licenses and identification cards during the
purchase of age-restricted goods and the storing, selling, or
sharing of personal information collected from the swiping of
customer driver licenses.
The Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to recover actual
damages or $1,000, whichever is greater, under ORS 807.850(8). In
addition, plaintiffs contends that if the court finds that the
alleged conduct was willful or knowing, the court should increase
the amount of the award to no more than three times the amount
otherwise available under ORS 807.850(8).
Plaid Pantry is a chain of privately owned convenience stores in
Oregon and Washington.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael R. McLane, Esq.
LYNCH MURPHY MCLANE LLP
747 SW Mill View Way
Bend, OR 97702
Telephone: (541) 383-5857
E-mail: mmclane@lynchmurphy.com
- and -
Joshua M. Sasaki, P.C., Esq.
John C. Clarke, OSB No. 153245
MILLER NASH LLP
1140 SW Washington St, Ste 700
Portland, OR 97205
Telephone: (503) 224-5858
Facsimile: (503) 224-0155
E-mail: josh.sasaki@millernash.com
john.clarke@millernash.com
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parmenter's Bid for Class Cert. Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA M. PARMENTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and DOES 1-50, Case No.
1:22-cv-10079-RGS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Richard Stearns
entered an order denying Parmenter's motion for class
certification.
The identified individual issues are not merely speculative. The
central dispute in this case can only be resolved by examining
extrinsic evidence that is necessarily individualized in nature.
Parmenter relies on conjecture alone to suggest that the clause can
be interpreted uniformly. But once one looks past this ipse dixit,
they are left with nearly no evidentiary proof or legal basis to
suggest that an ambiguous clause in seven different contracts –
contracts that contain different terms and were negotiated by
different people at unknown points in time – can be interpreted
homogenously. The court therefore cannot certify the Classes, Judge
Stearns said.
Parmenter moves to certify the case as a class action and proceed
with two overlapping classes:
-- a damages class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3)(Damages Class), and
an
injunctive relief class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) (Injunctive
Class).
The proposed Classes consist of current and former holders of
any
of the Plans whose certificates were issued in Massachusetts
and
who had insurance coverage when Prudential increased premiums
in
2018.
The prospective Damages Class members continued to hold their
policy after at least one of the premium increases (and thus
paid
higher premiums), and the prospective Injunctive Class members
abandoned their policies or reduced coverage after one of the
premium increases.
The Parmenter then sued on behalf of a putative class of insureds,
alleging that Prudential breached its fiduciary duties to
policyholders in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. section 1001 et seq.
Prudential provides life and group insurance, investment, and
retirement services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZX6knV at no extra
charge.[CC]
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Theodore Suit for Court Okay
------------------------------------------------------------------
PureCycle Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2024, that the consolidated
Theodore class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the
United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Beginning on or about May 11, 2021, two putative class action
complaints were filed against PCT, certain senior members of
management and others, asserting violations of federal securities
laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaints generally allege that the applicable defendants made
false and/or misleading statements in press releases and public
filings regarding the Technology, PCT's business and PCT's
prospects.
The first putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida by William C.
Theodore against PCT and certain senior members of management (the
"Initial Theodore Lawsuit").
The second putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida by David
Tennenbaum against PCT, certain senior members of management and
others (the "Tennenbaum Lawsuit").
On July 14, 2021, the court granted a motion to consolidate the
Initial Theodore and Tennenbaum Lawsuits (consolidated as the
"Consolidated Theodore Lawsuit") and on July 27, 2021, Tennenbaum
filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his complaint without
prejudice.
On August 5, 2021, the Court entered an order appointing Mariusz
Ciecko and Robert Ciecko as Co-Lead Plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs")
and Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel.
On April 2, 2024, the Company reached a tentative settlement of the
Consolidated Theodore Lawsuit (the "Securities Settlement"), which
was memorialized in a Stipulation of Settlement dated May 6, 2024.
Under the terms of the Securities Settlement, all known and unknown
claims shall be settled for $12 million in exchange for a complete
release of the Company and the individually named defendants in
each of the referenced matters.
The Securities Settlement shall be funded by the remainder of the
Company's self-insured retention under its directors and officers
liability insurance policies applicable to the claims ("D&O
Insurance") and contributions by various carriers comprising part
of the D&O Insurance tower available to the Company and defendants.
The Securities Settlement is subject to court approval.
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.purecycle.com/ --
provides recycling services..[BN]
R.C. BIGELOW: Newton Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA NEWTON, et al., v.
R.C. BIGELOW, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05660-LDH-SIL
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court LaShann DeArcy Hall
for an Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), 23(b)(3),
23(c), and 23(g):
(1) certifying the following classes
The Camellia Sinensis Class
"All natural persons who purchased at least one 18/20 count
box
of Bigelow Earl Grey Black Tea Caffeine, Green Tea Caffeine,
Constant Comment Black Tea Caffeine, Green Lemon Tea
Caffeine,
Vanilla Chai Black Tea Caffeine, English Tea Time Black Tea
Caffeine, Spiced Chai Black Tea Caffeine, French Vanilla
Black
Tea Caffeine, or Vanilla Caramel Black Tea Caffeine, labeled
as
"Manufactured in the USA 100% American Family Owned," at a
retail store in the state of New York, at any time from
Sept.
22, 2019 to May 18, 2022."
The Herbal Tea Class
"All natural persons who purchased at least one 18/20 count
box
of Bigelow Cozy Chamomile, Lemon Ginger, Lavender Chamomile,
Sweet Dreams, or Orange & Spice, labeled as "Manufactured in
the USA 100% American Family Owned," at a retail store in
the State of New York at any time from Sept. 22, 2019 to May
18, 2022."
(2) appointing Claudia Newton and Brandy Leandro as class
representatives;
(3) appointing Todd M. Schneider and Jason H. Kim of Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, Aubry Wand of the Wand Law
Firm,
P.C., and Daniella Quitt and Greg Linkh of Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP as Class counsel, and
(4) directing that notice be provided to the Class together with
such further relief as the Court deems proper.
R.C. Bigelow is an American manufacturer of dried teas.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x5fTt6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason H. Kim, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 835-1550
E-mail: jkim@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Aubry Wand, Esq.
THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (310) 590-4503
E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com
- and -
Daniella Quitt, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, 5th FL
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 935-7400
E-mail: dquitt@glancylaw.com
REDWIRE CORP: Continues to Defend Lemen Class Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Redwire 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 Lemen class suit in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.
On December 17, 2021, the Company, the Company's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Peter Cannito, and then current, but now former
Chief Financial Officer, William Read, were named as defendants in
a putative class action complaint filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
That litigation is captioned Lemen v. Redwire Corp. et al., Case
No. 3:21-cv-01254-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.).
On March 7, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff.
On June 17, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiff alleges that the
Company and certain of its directors and officers made misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, allegedly in
violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder)
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. As relief, the plaintiffs
are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages.
The defendants believe the allegations are without merit and intend
to defend the suit vigorously.
On August 16, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
in its entirety, and such motion was denied by the Court on March
22, 2023.
A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range
of loss cannot be made at this time.
Redwire is an American aerospace manufacturer and space
infrastructure technology company.[CC]
RELIANT LIFE: Reed Bid for Class Certification Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES REED et al., v.
RELIANT LIFE SHARES LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-08577-SB-AGR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order
denying the motion for class certification.
On this record, the Plaintiffs have not shown that the named
plaintiffs are typical of any of the proposed classes, as is
required for certification under Rule 23(a).
Nor have Plaintiffs shown that issues common to all the series will
predominate over questions affecting individual class members, as
is required for certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Thus, the
Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden to show that class
certification is appropriate.
Because the Plaintiffs have not addressed these issues and have
otherwise failed to establish typicality, the Court at this point
need not make any finding as to whether these potential conflicts
preclude a finding of typicality or adequacy as to the named
plaintiffs or class counsel.
The Plaintiffs in this putative class action invested in
fractionalized interests in the benefits of life insurance policies
offered by Defendant Reliant Life Shares LLC (RLS).
RLS and its affiliates allegedly commingled funds, diverted assets
for personal use, and otherwise engaged in fraud and mismanagement.
As a result, RLS has been unable to pay required premiums on
various policies, leading to the lapse of some policies and the
appointment of a receiver who is attempting to salvage the
remaining policies while also paying a $10 million judgment to
Daniel Cooper, a former co-owner of RLS. In the state court
overseeing the receivership, the receiver applied to pool all
remaining policies and treat all participating investors as having
a pro rata share of the pooled investment.
Reliant Life is a financial services company that focuses on life
settlements, investment returns, escrow and trust services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ls9Tl5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
RETSEL CORP: Bid to Exclude Settlement Offers Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NDN COLLECTIVE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; SUNNY
RED BEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; GEORGE BETTELYOUN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; ALBERTA EAGLE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; NICK COTTIER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; BRE JACKSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MARY
BOWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated. v. RETSEL CORPORATION, d/b/a Grand Gateway Hotel, d/b/a
Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino; CONNIE UHRE; and NICK UHRE, Case
No. 5:22-cv-05027-LLP (D.S.D.), the Hon. Judge Lawrence Piersol
entered a pretrial order granting in part and
denying in part parties' pretrial motions.
-- Motion to exclude settlement offers—granted in part.
-- Motion to exclude medical evidence—granted in part and
denied
in part.
-- Motion to exclude reference to nick tilsen's protective orders,
Facebook posts, and the charge against Brandon Furguson --
granted
in part.
-- Motion to exclude sunny red bear's protective orders and
divorce –
- granted in part and denied in part.
-- Motion to prevent testimony related to dismissed counterclaims
–
granted
-- Motion to prevent testimony related to a minor related to Nick
Tilsen being present as the shooting at grand gateway hotel --
Granted.
Retsel Corp was founded in 2008. The company's line of business
includes providing miscellaneous personal services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cRPKTq at no extra
charge.[CC]
RHHC TRIOS: Class Settlement in Kurtz Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MYLA KURTZ, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. RHHC TRIOS
HEALTH, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-05049-MKD (E.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Mary Dimke entered an order that:
1. Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class and
Collective Action Settlement is granted.
2. Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees
and
Costs, is granted in part.
3. The final approval of the terms and conditions contained in
the
Settlement Agreement is granted.
4. The Court makes final its certification of the provisional
Class, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, for the
purposes of this Settlement Agreement only.
5. The Court finally approves an incentive award of $15,000 for
Plaintiff Myla Kurtz.
6. The Court finally approves an award of attorney's fees of
$1,188,000 for Class Counsel.
7. The Court finally approves Class Counsel's request for costs
up
to $32,000.
8. The Court finally approves the appointment of Phoenix
Settlement Administrators as Settlement Administrator and
approves its reasonable administration costs of $24,000.
9. The Court approves Working Washington and Legal Foundation
of
Washington as the cy pres recipients in the event there are
funds remaining.
The Settlement Agreement resolves the claims of the "Class" and the
"Collective." The Class is defined as:
"all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees employed by
Defendants RCCH Trios Health, LLC, RCCH Trios Physicians, LLC,
and
Lourdes Hospital, LLC in Washington, from April 3, 2016, through
September 6, 2023, and by Columbia Capital Medical Center, LP
from
April 3, 2016, to March 31, 2021, in Washington in one or more
of
the job classifications [in a table of specific job codes listed
in
the Settlement Agreement]."
"Participating Class Members" are Class Members who have not
requested to be excluded.
The "FLSA Collective" or just "Collective" is defined as
"all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees employed by
the Defendants in Washington in one or more of the job
classifications listed in [the same table] at any time during the
FLSA Collective Period, who filed Consents to Join this Action on
or before Sept. 6, 2023."
RHHC Trios is a multi-faceted healthcare system located in
southeastern Washington.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WPws5P at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROBLOX CORP: Alexandru Tudose Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EUGENE LI, v. ROBLOX
CORP., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-03484-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Maxine Chesney entered an order:
-- granting Alexandru Tudose's motion for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and approval of counsel;
No opposition or other response to the motion has been filed.
Having read and considered the Motion, the Court deems the matter
suitable for decision thereon, vacates the hearing scheduled for
September 20, 2024, and rules as follows.
The Complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Roblox is an American video game developer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9jjtzZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROMEO POWER: Request for Service Awards Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re ROMEO POWER INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-03362-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Lorna Schofield entered an order granting in part and denying in
part the request for service awards.
Service awards are granted as follows:
$8,000 to Plaintiff Cante,
$8,000 to Plaintiff Chimchirian,
$6,000 to Plaintiff Tapia,
$5,000 to Plaintiff Castleberg, and
$5,000 to Plaintiff Nguyen.
These awards are reasonable and promote equity among the class
members because the awards compensate the lead and named Plaintiffs
for the reasonable costs and expenses they incurred as class
representatives. The Class Representatives' service awards shall be
paid from the settlement fund and shall not be paid until a
majority of class members have received their cash awards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YMtY61 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROMEO'S PIZZA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Branning Due Oct. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW BRANNING, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, V. ROMEO'S PIZZA,
INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02092-SO (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Solomon Oliver Jr. entered a status conference order as follows:
Accordingly, the court established a discovery cut-off date of
Sept. 30, 2024.
The Plaintiffs motion for class certification is due on or before
Oct. 22, 2024; Defendants' brief in opposition to Plaintiffs motion
for class certification is due on or before Nov. 22, 2024; and
Plaintiffs reply brief in support of class certification is due on
or before Dec. 9, 2024.
Additionally, dispositive motions are due on or before Feb. 17,
2025.
Romeo's Pizza serves a variety of Greek and Italian dishes,
including mouthwatering pizzas, savory pastas, fresh salads, and
more.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dLIzXM at no extra
charge.[CC]
RUNNEMEDE, NJ: Faces Peek Suit Over Property Registration Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY PEEK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. BOROUGH OF RUNNEMEDE, NEW JERSEY; and CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY,
Case No. CAM-L-002419-24 (N.J. Super., Camden Cty., Aug. 7, 2024)
is a class action, filed under New Jersey law, on behalf of a
proposed class of New Jersey citizens who were charged unlawful
"abandoned" property registration fees of $500 semi-annually as
part of Defendant Borough of Runnemede's Registration Program for
Vacant and Abandoned Properties.
According to the complaint, Defendant Borough of Runnemede amended
the Program and its enabling ordinance in 2022, ostensibly to
comply with New Jersey law. However, neither Defendant Borough of
Runnemede nor Defendant Camden County ever refunded any of the
monies they collected from Plaintiff and the class pursuant to the
unconstitutional, ultra vires, and unlawful Program at issue.
The Plaintiff was charged a semi-annual Program registration fee of
$500.00 by Defendants on or about April 30, 2020.
Defendant Borough of Runnemede is located in Camden County, New
Jersey, and is organized as a municipality under the constitution
and laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq
Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq
Shane T. Prince, Esquire
DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C
525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 797-9951
- and -
Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
JAVERBAUM, WURGAFT, HICKS,
KAHN, WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C
1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Rd., Ste. 203
Voorhees, New Jersey 0804
Telephone: (856) 596-4100
RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Parties Seek to Certify Plan Participant Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY WANEK, JUAN DUARTE,
and RICK RUBERTON, as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the Caesars Entertainment
Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan, v. RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST
COMPANY, CAESARS HOLDINGS, INC., THE PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and
THE 401(K) PLAN COMMITTEE., Case No. 2:21-cv-00961-CDS-BNW (D.
Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order as follows:
1. The following class ("Class") shall be certified:
"All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan at any time
from
Aug. 1, 2017 through Dec. 17, 2021, excluding any employees
of
Caesars with responsibility for the Plan's investment or
administrative functions."
2. The class is numerous, as the Plan had tens of thousands of
participants during the class period who were invested in the
Russell Funds.
3. There are common issues respecting the claims alleged in the
Fifth Amended Complaint relating to (among other things): (a)
which Defendants served as Plan fiduciaries; (b) whether the
Plan's fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties in
violation
of 29 U.S.C. section 1104; and (c) the relief, if any, that
may
be appropriate in this case.
4. The alleged claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the alleged
claims of the other class members as the Plaintiffs
participated
in the Plan during the class period and they allege they
suffered the same or similar injury as other class members
based
on Defendants’ alleged conduct.
5. Plaintiffs declare that they are committed to fairly,
adequately, and vigorously representing and protecting the
interests of the members of the Class, and the parties and
counsel.
The Plaintiffs filed their renewed Motion for Class Certification
on Aug. 9, 2024.
Russell operates as an investment advisor.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jq6W9n at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul S. Padda, Esq.
PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC
4560 South Decatur Blvd., Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89103
Telephone: (702) 366-1888
E-mail: psp@paulpaddalaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Brock J. Specht, Esq.
Benjamin J. Bauer, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: lukas@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
bbauer@nka.com
The Defendants are represented by:
D. Matthew Moscon, Esq.
Nancy G. Ross, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
201 South Main Street, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 907-2703
E-mail: mmoscon@mayerbrown.com
nross@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Patrick H. Hicks, Esq.
Diana G. Dickinson, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169-5937
Telephone: (702) 862-8800
E-mail: phicks@littler.com
ddickinson@littler.com
- and -
Sean M. Murphy, Esq.
Robert C. Hora, Esq.
MILBANK LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 530-5000
- and -
Rew R. Goodenow, Esq.
Michael R. Kealy, Esq.
PARSONS, BEHLE & LATIMER
50 West Liberty Street, Suite 750
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: (775) 323-1601
SAGE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Korver Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARREN KORVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SAGE THERAPEUTICS, INC., BARRY E. GREENE, and KIMI
IGUCHI, Case No. 1:24-cv-06511 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 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 Sage securities between April 12, 2021 and July
23, 2024, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
Sage is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes brain health medicines. The Company is developing,
inter alia, zuranolone (SAGE-217/BIIB125), a neuroactive steroid
for the treatment of postpartum depression ("PPD") and major
depressive disorder ("MDD"), in collaboration with Biogen Inc.
("Biogen"); SAGE-718 (dalzanemdor), an oral, oxysterol-based
positive allosteric modulator of the N-methyl-D-aspartate ("NMDA")
receptor for the treatment of, inter alia, mild cognitive
impairment ("MCI") due to Parkinson's Disease ("PD"); and SAGE-324
(BIIB124), an oral investigational drug for the treatment of
essential tremor ("ET"), also in collaboration with Biogen.
In May 2022, Sage announced that it had initiated a rolling
submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (“FDA”) for zuranolone in the treatment of
MDD. In June 2022, Sage announced that, rather than filing separate
NDAs for zuranolone in the treatment of MDD and PPD, as originally
intended, it would instead submit a single NDA seeking approval of
zuranolone for the treatment of both MDD and PPD (the "Zuranolone
NDA").
In December 2022, Sage announced the completion of the rolling
submission of the Zuranolone NDA to the FDA. Throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that zuranolone was less effective in
treating MDD than Defendants had led investors to believe.
On August 4, 2023, Sage issued a press release disclosing that the
FDA had only approved the Zuranolone NDA insofar as it sought
zuranolone as a treatment for adults with PPD and had "issued a
Complete Response Letter (CRL) for the [NDA] for zuranolone in the
treatment of adults with MDD" because "the application did not
provide substantial evidence of effectiveness to support the
approval of zuranolone for the treatment of MDD," advising that "an
additional study or studies will be needed” for that additional
indication.
Then, on July 24, 2024, Sage issued a press release disclosing that
a Phase 2 study of SAGE-324 as a treatment for ET "did not
demonstrate a statistically significant dose-response relationship
in change from baseline to Day 91 based on the primary endpoint,
The Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale (TETRAS) Performance
Subscale (PS) Item 4 (upper limb) total score, in participants with
ET"; that "there were no statistically significant differences
demonstrated for any dose of SAGE-324 versus placebo in the change
from baseline to Day 91 on the TETRAS PS Item 4 Total Score or the
TETRAS Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Composite Score"; and that,
"given these results, Sage and Biogen will close the ongoing open
label safety study of SAGE-324 in ET and do not plan to conduct
further clinical development of SAGE-324 in ET. "
On this news, Sage's stock price fell $2.70 per share, or 20.64%,
to close at $10.38 per share on July 24, 2024.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 303-1964
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
SALEFORCE.COM: Miguel Seeks Initial Status of Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGOR MIGUEL and AMANDA
BREDLOW, v. SALEFORCE.COM INC., et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-01753-MMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that:
(1) consolidates Miguel, et. al. v. Salesforce.com, Inc. et al.,
3:20-cv-01753 and Simonelli, et. al. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.
et. al., 24-cv-008132 Actions;
(2) preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement with the
Defendants, Salesforce.com, Inc., the Board of Directors of
Salesforce.com, Inc., Marc Benioff, the Investment Advisory
Committee, Joseph Allanson, Stan Dunlap, and Joachim
Wettermark
and with Plaintiffs;
(3) preliminarily certifies the proposed Settlement Class
defined
as:
"All persons who participated in the Salesforce 401(k) Plan
at
any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary
of
a deceased Person who participated in the Salesforce 401(k)
Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate
Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the
Salesforce 401(k) Plan at any time during the Class
Period."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their
Beneficiaries.
The Class Period is March 11, 2014, through the date the
Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court.
The Class excludes Defendants Salesforce.com, Inc., the
Board
of Directors of Salesforce.com, Inc., Marc Benioff, the
Investment Advisory committee, Joseph Allanson, Stan Dunlap,
and Joachim Wettermark;
(4) approves the proposed notice plan; and
(5) sets a final approval hearing on Sept. 27, 2024 or a date
convenient for the Court at least 120 calendar days after
the
entry of a preliminary approval order.
A proposed Preliminary Approval Order is attached as Exhibit C to
the Settlement Agreement.
Salesforce.com provides customer relationship management software
and applications focused on sales, customer service, marketing
automation, e-commerce, analytics, and application development.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cQVNMV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Wells, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
jayw@capozziadler.com
- and -
Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
5959 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Ste. 360
Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7503
Telephone: (818) 788-0877
Facsimile: (818) 788-0885
E-mail: germain@lalawyer.com
- and -
Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
MUHIC LAW LLC
923 Haddonfield Road,
Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 324-8252
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com
SAN DIEGO DIALYSIS: Initial Joint Bid to Stay Discovery Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watson v. San Diego
Dialysis Services, Inc. Case No. 3:24-cv-00228 (S.D. Cal., Filed
Feb. 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Linda Lopez entered an order denying
the parties' initial joint motion to stay discovery and continue
scheduled dates in light of the revised joint motion to continue
scheduled case deadlines.
-- Accordingly, any remaining dispute regarding Plaintiff's second
set of discovery requests shall be raised with the Court
pursuant
to Section V of J. Burkhardt's Civ. Chambers R. no later than
Nov.
8, 2024.
-- All discovery that relates to class certification shall be
completed by all parties on or before Jan. 3, 2025.
-- Any motion for class certification shall be filed on or before
Jan. 31, 2025.
-- All other dates, deadlines, and requirements set forth in the
Court's Scheduling Order remain in effect.
-- Finally, the Status Conference currently set for Aug. 30, 2024,
at
2:15 PM is vacated.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.[CC]
SAZERAC CO: Bid to Seal Class Cert Docs Temporarily OK'd in Andrews
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrews, et al., v.
Sazerac Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01060-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order temporarily granting
the motion to seal.
The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed
or redacted when deciding the underlying motions. The Clerk of
Court is directed to restrict viewing access of ECF No. 77 to the
Court and the parties, and to terminate the motion at ECF No. 76.
Additionally, Sazerac seeks to redact discrete sections of the
memorandum of law opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification that quote from or refer to the Documents.
The Documents consist of:
(a) Exhibit A to the Declaration of Adam Wilkins, which contains
commercially sensitive confidential communications that
reveal
Sazerac's marketing and branding strategies;
(b) Exhibits A and B to the Declaration of Corey Beilstein,
which
contain market research reports obtained by Sazerac from
third
parties on a confidential basis; and
(c) Exhibit A to the Declaration of Lindsay Helo, which contains
the contents of certain consumer inquiries. Disclosing these
confidential and sensitive Documents would cause serious
competitive harm to Sazerac.
The Documents also include Exhibit C to the Declaration of
Creighton R. Magid, the confidential expert report of David
Reibstein.
This expert report includes many quotations from confidential
deposition testimony and citations and references to the other
documents that are the subject of this request.
Sazerac Company is a privately held American alcoholic beverage
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5EuW1i at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Creighton R. Magid, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 800-1400
Facsimile: (714) 800-1499
E-mail: magid.chip@dorsey.com
SELECT REHABILITATION: Seeks to Compel Depositions of Declarants
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN,
CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order
A. Compel the depositions of each of the 29 Declarants who
submitted declarations in support of Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify;
B. Compel the Plaintiffs to work with Select to schedule
mutually
convenient dates for these depositions;
C. Re-set the deadline for Select's Opposition to the Motion to
Certify for two weeks after the last deposition of the 29
Declarants is taken; and
D. Award Select such other relief as this Court deems just.
At the Hearing on July 24, 2024 (the “July 24 Hearing”), this
Court clearly instructed Plaintiffs to work with Select to schedule
these and suggested they could be done in a single month. Since
that time, Select has asked Plaintiffs repeatedly to confer on
dates, and when Plaintiffs failed to do so, Select noticed the
depositions for a onemonth block, from September 3-October 11,
2024, but told Plaintiffs it would work with them if dates were
inconvenient.
Despite Select's clear entitlement to these depositions under the
law, Plaintiffs have refused to schedule them and have instead
advised they will not appear.
It is urgent that Select be allowed to take these depositions of
Declarants. Plaintiffs repeatedly cite these Declarations
throughout their Motion to Certify as to why they satisfy each Rule
23 factor. To defend against these allegations, Select must be able
to examine the Declarants.
The Plaintiffs' refusal to make these Declarants available in
advance of the deadline for Select's Opposition to the Motion to
Certify ("Opposition") -- October 30, 2024 -- risks great prejudice
to Select.
On June 11, 2024, Plaintiffs submitted their Motion to Certify.
(Doc. 325). Included in that submission were the Declarations from
29 Declarants.
On August 14, 2024, the parties jointly submitted a proposed Case
Management Report.
On August 21, 2024, the Court issued its Second Amended CMR,
establishing October 30, 2024, as the deadline for Select’s
Opposition.
Select Rehabilitation provides comprehensive therapy services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PQpeLj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
David B. Goroff, Esq.
John A. Tucker, Esq.
Carrie Hoffman, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
321 North Clark Street, Ste. 3000
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 832-4500
Facsimile: (312) 832-4700
E-mail: dgoroff@foley.com
jtucker@foley.com
choffman@foley.com
- and -
Diane G. Walker, Esq.
Kristen W. Roberts, Esq.
WALKER ROBERTS LLP
1401 Branding Ave., Ste. 300
Downers, Grove, IL
Telephone: (312) 471-2900
Facsimile: (312) 471-6001
E-mail: dwalker@walkerrobertsllp.com
kroberts@walkerrobertsllp.com
SHARI REDSTONE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIVEVIDEO.AI CORP, v.
SHARI REDSTONE, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06290-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a general pretrial management
order as follows:
All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must
be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
To the extent plaintiff' alleges that the individual defendants
breached duties owed to defendant National Amusements, Inc. – or
to anyone else other than LiveVideo – the Complaint also fails to
show that plaintiff has standing to sue. Consequently, it is hereby
ORDERED that, no later than September 9, 2024, plaintiff shall show
cause, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction
Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by
the Court.
Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule
37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences
are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that
an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a
motion or narrow the issues.
In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual
Practices, letters and lettermotions are limited to four pages,
exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters and
lettermotions filed via ECF are required only if the filing
contains voluminous attachments. Courtesy copies should be
delivered promptly, should bear the ECF header generated at the
time of electronic filing, and should include tabs for the
attachments.
Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any
defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must
serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all
defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service
with the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=17tO4A at no extra
charge.[CC]
SHEN YUN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. SHEN YUN PERFORMING ARTS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06443
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.shenyun.com/ and https://exams.shenyuncreations.com/,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
June 20, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Classic Chinese Dance
One-on-Five Live Course Level 5 from the Defendant and to view the
information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers that denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience
similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access
to the goods and services offered to the public and made available
to the public, the suit says.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to
contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, the
suit adds.
This discrimination is particularly acute during the current
COVID-19 global pandemic.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Shen Yun is a United States-based non-profit performing arts and
entertainment company that tours internationally, producing
performances including dance and symphonic music.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, New York 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Salhotra Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAVI SALHOTRA, SANDHYA
SALHOTRA, MELISSA CARD, FEI ALLEN, SABRINA TUMELSON, and MAURICE
VAN ROEKEL AS TRUSTEE OF THE VAN ROEKEL SURVIVOR'S TRUST, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SIMPSON
STRONG-TIE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a California corporation; SIMPSON
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07901-TLT (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
administrative motion to consider whether another party’s
material should be sealed.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11, 79-5, and specifically 79-5(f),
Plaintiffs respectfully seek to seal certain portions of
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
Motion for Class Certification, the Declaration of Graham B.
LippSmith in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification,
Exhibits 3 – 6, 292 – 293, and 295 to the Declaration of Graham
B. LippSmith and the Declaration of Paul W. Brown, Ph.D. in Support
of Motion for Class Certification, which refer to materials
designated by the Defendants as "Confidential" or "Highly
Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the parties’
Stipulated Protective Order as approved by the Court.
The Declaration of Graham B. LippSmith in Support of Administrative
Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be
Sealed filed in conjunction with this Administrative Motion sets
forth the documents and/or excerpts of documents that Plaintiffs
request to be filed under seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule
79-5(f), Simpson, as the Designating Party, bears the
responsibility to establish that its designated materials are
sealable.
Simpson designs and sells structural connectors intended to anchor
a home to its concrete foundation.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LPfufC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 846-3862
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
- and -
Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
MaryBeth LippSmith, Esq.
Celene Chan Andrews, Esq.
LIPPSMITH LLP
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 344-1820
Facsimile: (213) 513-2495
E-mail: g@lippsmith.com
mb@lippsmith.com
cca@lippsmith.com
- and -
Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq.
Scott J. Thomson, Esq.
KASDAN TURNER
THOMSON BOOTH, LLP
1280 Civic Drive., Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 906-9220
Facsimile: (925) 906-9221
E-mail: kskasdan@kasdancdlaw.com
sthomson@kasdancdlaw.com
- and -
Stephen G. Larson, Esq.
Paul A. Rigali, Esq.
LARSON LLP
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 436-4888
Facsimile: (213) 623-200
E-mail: slarson@larsonllp.com
prigali@larsonllp.com
SMITH GAMBRELL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Owens Extended to Dec. 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES OWENS, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL INTERNATIONAL, LLP; and DOES 1-10, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01789-JAK-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John
Kronstadt entered an order approving the joint stipulation
extending the plaintiffs' deadline to file motion for class
certification.
1. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification is extended from Sept. 9, 2024, to Dec. 9,
2024;
2. The deadline for Defendant to file its opposition to the
motion
for class certification is extended from Oct. 7, 2024, to
Jan. 6, 2025;
3. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of
the motion for class certification is extended from Oct. 14,
2024, to Jan. 13, 2025; and
4. The hearing on the motion for class certification is
continued
from Oct. 28, 2024, to Jan. 27, 2025, at 8:30 AM, with the
precise time to be set when the final calendar for that date
is
issued.
Smith is a full service, International law firm that advises
regional, national, and global businesses on a wide range of legal
matters.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DuWdGT at no extra
charge.[CC]
SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Class Cert Scheduling Order Extended in Lyngaas
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
P.L.L.C., individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC. and JOHN
DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:22-cv-10830-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
-- extending the upcoming filing deadlines in the current
scheduling
order by 60 days, which would allow for the Court's disposition
of
the pending discovery related motions filed by the Plaintiff
and
by the Defendant Solstice Benefits, Inc., and
-- granting any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate.
Before filing this motion, in accordance with the Court's direction
in its Minute Order dated Aug. 13, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff met
and conferred with counsel for Solstice via telephone on Aug. 14,
2024, regarding the relief requested in this Motion.
Counsel for Plaintiff explained the nature of the motion, its legal
basis and relief requested, but did not obtain concurrence in the
relief sought. \
Solstice offers dental and vision plans for individuals and
families.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jc1Jv7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq.
BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
203 N. La Salle Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
E-mail: service@classlawyers.com
- and -
Richard Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
6550 Lakeshore Street
West Bloomfield, MI 48323
Telephone: (248) 562-1320
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
SOUTH SUBURBAN: Faces Little Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
YOLANDA LITTLE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SOUTH SUBURBAN COLLEGE, Case No. 1:24-cv-07728 (N.D.
Ill., Aug. 27, 2024) is class action suit brought by the Plaintiff
on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated victims as a
result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving the
personally identifiable information suffered by South Suburban
College.
On Nov. 8, 2023, an unknown and unauthorized criminal actor gained
access to SSC's network and exfiltrated, at a minimum, name,
address, date of birth, and/or Social Security number.
In a Notice of Data Security Incident letter, SSC sent to Plaintiff
and Class Members on or around August 5, 2024, SSC explains:
What Happened and What Information was Involved:
On or around November 8, 2023, SSC detected that it was the
target of a cybersecurity attack, in which an unauthorized
third party attempted to infiltrate SSC’s network and demand
a
ransom payment. Upon detecting incident, SSC moved quickly to
secure its network environment and launched a thorough
investigation. The investigation was performed with the help of
independent IT security and forensic investigators to determine
the scope and extent of the potential unauthorized access of
our systems and any personal information.
Although SSC has found no evidence your information has been
specifically accessed for misuse, it is possible your name,
mailing address, date of birth, and/or social security number,
to the extent that such may have existed on the network, could
have been exposed. Notably, the types of information affected
were different for each individual, and not every individual
had all of the elements listed above exposed.
The Defendant allegedly disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and
Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately
robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard
Plaintiff and Class members' PII; failing to take standard and
reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; failing to
properly train its staff and employees on proper security measures;
and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt notice of
the Data Breach.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a present and imminent risk of fraud and identity
theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future
closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity
theft, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, actual
damages, compensatory damages, nominal damages, and reimbursement
of out-of-pocket costs. The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive and
equitable relief to prevent future injury on behalf of herself and
the putative Class
Plaintiff Little is an individual citizen of Illinois and received
a Notice of Data Security Incident letter from Defendant on or
around August 5, 2024. Plaintiff Little's data was allegedly
exposed because she was a student at the College.
South Suburban College is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business located in South Holland, Illinois.
Defendant is a public community college.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
IL Bar No. 6337427
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
SPECIALTY NETWORKS: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Jones Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANA JONES, individually as parent and guardian of A.J., a minor,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPECIALTY
NETWORKS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00291 (E.D. Tenn., Aug. 26, 2024)
contends that Specialty allowed the Plaintiff's and Class members'
personally identifiable information and protected health
information to be accessed by third parties.
According to the complaint, Specialty was aware as early as Dec.
18, 2023—over eight months ago—that its systems had been
compromised by an unauthorized third party. Yet it waited months to
notify patients that their data had been compromised, the suit
says.
On Aug. 15, 2024, Specialty admitted that an unauthorized
individual accessed its systems on Dec. 11, 2023 and acquired data
stored within its systems. Specialty has not disclosed how many
individuals' PII and PHI—including personal, medical, and health
insurance information, as well as Social Security numbers—was
compromised in the Data Breach. The Defendant allegedly failed to
implement security systems and practices consistent with federal
and state laws and guidelines; implement security systems and
practices consistent with industry norms; timely detect the Data
Breach; and timely disclose the Data Breach to impacted customers.
The Plaintiff now seeks compensation under principles of common law
negligence and unjust enrichment, as well as for breach of the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), for her damages and
those of fellow Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive
relief to ensure that Specialty cannot continue to put patients at
risk.
Ms. Jones is the parent and guardian of her minor daughter A.J.,
who is a resident of Chattanooga, Tennessee. On Aug. 19, 2024, Ms.
Jones received a letter from Specialty informing her that her
daughter's PII and PHI had been compromised in the Data Breach.
Specialty provides radiology information systems, digital
transcription services, and Enterprise Practice Management
solutions for medical facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
- and -
Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: kboyd@tousley.com
STAFF SUPPORT: Bid for Initial Approval of Settlement Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL VASQUEZ, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STAFF SUPPORT TEAM, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03468-CLP (E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Cheryl Pollak entered an order that:
(1) the check-cashing opt-in mechanism proposed by the Agreement
does not conform to the requirements of 29 U.S.C. section
216(b);
(2) the non-mutual general release clause is impermissible as
part
of an FLSA settlement; and
(3) the parties have not supplied sufficient information for the
Court to make a preliminary assessment of the fairness of
the
Agreement for purposes of Cheeks or Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court denies the Motion for preliminary approval of a proposed
settlement and conditional certification of a hybrid
collective/class action, without prejudice and with leave to renew
in a manner that complies with this Order.
By September 30, 2024, the parties shall file a joint status report
indicating whether they intend to revisit settlement or proceed
with this action. If the latter, the parties shall propose dates
for any remaining pre-trial deadlines.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties
either electronically through the Electronic Case Filing (ECF)
system or by mail.
Accordingly, based on the information presently available, the
Court finds that proposed Class Counsel satisfy the criteria of
Rule 23(g), and that it would be appropriate to appoint Mr. Sweeney
and Mr. Davis as class counsel should plaintiffs renew their
Motion.
On March 20, 2023, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaints
against the A+ defendants and the SST defendants.
On April 28, 2023, the A+ plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of the FLSA collective described in the A+ Third
Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs, who have brought these actions on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are individuals who
are or were allegedly employed by defendants to "disinfect subway
cars and high touch points in New York City subway stations."
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ndSvRh at no extra
charge.[CC]
STEAK N SHAKE: Faces Massel Class Suit Over Biometrics Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Massel, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Steak N Shake, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-07827 (N.D. Ill.,
Aug. 28, 2024) seeks to redress and curtail the Defendant's
unlawful collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of
Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information.
In 2024, Steak 'n Shake implemented biometric facial recognition
check-in and check-out kiosks. The kiosks are utilized to
streamline the consumer experience by allowing customers to log in
each time they enter a Steak 'n Shake and be able to make new
orders, re-order past orders, and track loyalty points.
Additionally, these kiosks allow customers to pay for their meals
via a service, which is marketed as a facial recognition payment
service. These kiosks prompt customers to scan their face
automatically which signs them into their loyalty reward account
and allows them to pay for their meals, says the suit.
The Plaintiff visited a Steak 'n Shake location in 2024 and was
prompted by the kiosk to use "Face Check-In" to access his loyalty
reward account and create his order. The Plaintiff's facial
geometry was collected during this process and was required by
Steak 'n Shake in order to verify his identity.
The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of herself and all
members of the following Rule 23 Class:
"All individuals who had their biometric information collected
by Defendant Steak N Shake, Inc. in Illinois at any point in
the five years preceding the filing of this Complaint."
Steak 'n Shake is an international casual restaurant chain based in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave., Ste.104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 ½ N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
STEPHEN SMITH: Violated Plaintiff Class' Rights, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.M.C., by her next
friend, C.D.C., et al., v. STEPHEN SMITH, in his official capacity
as Deputy Commissioner of Finance and Administration and Director
of the Division of TennCare, Case No. 3:20-cv-00240 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. recommended that Smith has
violated the Plaintiff Class's rights under the Medicaid Act and
Due Process Clause and violated the Disability Subclass's rights
under the ADA.
As the Court noted at the outset of this Memorandum Opinion, when
an enrollee is entitled to state-administered Medicaid, it should
not require luck, perseverance, and zealous lawyering for him or
her to receive that healthcare coverage.
Luckily for the Plaintiffs, they had all three. Plaintiff Class
members and Disability Subclass members lacked one or all of these
apparent prerequisites and have not yet had their coverage
reinstated and backdated. No doubt, they, like the Plaintiffs who
testified, more likely than not faced both financial hardships and
adverse health outcomes on account of TennCare’s unlawful
actions. Now, the Court must ensure they receive their deserved
relief.
The Plaintiffs allege that Tennessee's policies and processes for
issuing notice and affording administrative hearings to TennCare
members facing loss of coverage deny those members procedural due
process under the Medicaid Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. section
1396a(a)(3) and its regulations, and the Due Process Clause.
On Aug. 9, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
certifying the Plaintiff Class and Disability Subclass, along with
fifteen issues well-suited for collective litigation. Specifically,
the Court certified a "Plaintiff Class" consisting of
"all individuals who, since March 19, 2019, have been or will
be
disenrolled from TennCare, excluding individuals, and the
parents
and legal guardians of individuals, who requested withdrawal
from
TennCare,"
and it certified a Disability Subclass consisting of:
"Plaintiff Class members who are 'qualified individuals with a
disability' as defined in 42 U.S.C. section 12131(2)."
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9fTCLv at no extra
charge.[CC]
STORYBUILT LLC: Plante Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Employee Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA PLANTE, BRITTANY
GONZALEZ, and GERARDO URBINA, v. STORYBUILT, LLC, and PSW REAL
ESTATE LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01021-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying the proposed class of:
"[a]ll former employees of Defendants throughout the United
States
who were terminated as a result of a 'mass layoff,' as defined
by
the WARN Act, without 60 days advance written notice, beginning
in
July 2023."
-- appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives,
-- appointing Kaplan Law Firm, PLLC as class counsel, and
-- granting all other relief that this Court sees fit.
On Aug. 30, 2023, the Plaintiffs Plante, Gonzalez, and Urbina filed
their Class Action Complaint against StoryBuilt and PSW Real
Estate. Dkt.
On Jan. 12, 2024, this Court ordered the Plaintiffs to move for
final default judgment.
StoryBuilt is a real estate development, commercial development,
urban infill, and architecture company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=beoWhj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Caitlin Boehne, Esq.
Ryan O. Estes, Esq.
Austin Kaplan, Esq.
KAPLAN LAW FIRM
2901 Bee Cave Rd., Suite G
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 814-7348
E-mail: cboehne@kaplanlawatx.com
restes@kaplanlawatx.com
akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Oct. 7
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARD et al., v.
STRATEGIC DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07396-CPO-MJS
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' renewed motion to conditionally certify
the collective and their renewed motion to certify the class.
-- SDS' opposition would be due on: Oct. 7, 2024
-- Return date would be: Oct. 21, 2024
Currently, the renewed motions are returnable on Sept. 16, 2024,
with SDS's oppositions due on Sept. 3, 2024.
Strategic Delivery is a provider of last mile logistics to the
healthcare industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9bzT7S at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
David F. Jasinski, Esq.
JASINSKI, P.C.
2 Hance Avenue, 3rd floor
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
Telephone: (973) 824-9700
Facsimile: (732) 842-1805
STREAMLABS LLC: Class Settlement in Leventhal Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZARA LEVENTHAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STREAMLABS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01330-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order granting preliminary approval
of the Settlement and hereby finds and concludes as follows:
1. The capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall
have
the same meaning as defined in the Settlement Agreement
except
as may otherwise be ordered.
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d), and has personal
jurisdiction over the Parties and the Settlement Class
Members.
Venue is proper in this District.
3. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement as
within the range of possible final approval, and as meriting
submission to the Settlement Class for its consideration.
4. The Court provisionally certifies, for settlement purposes
only,
a Settlement Class pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3),
consisting of:
"All Persons in the United States who, during the period
March
3, 2018 through May 17, 2022, were enrolled in a Streamlabs
Pro
automatic renewal subscription after adding a GIF or effect
to
their donation, and were then billed a monthly fee for the
subscription (after their first charge for their initial GIF
or
effect)."
The following Persons are excluded from the Settlement Class:
(1) all officers, directors, and employees of Streamlabs and
members of their families; (2) all officers, directors, and
employees of Logitech and members of their families; (3) the
Mediator, and any member of his immediate family; (4) any
government entity; (5) any Settlement Class Members who have
received refunds of all the monies that they paid for their
Streamlabs Pro subscriptions; and (6) any Persons who timely
opt
out of the Settlement Class. The Settlement Class does not
include Persons who were billed only the initial $5.99 for
their
GIF or effect.
5. The Court preliminarily finds and concludes, for settlement
purposes only, that the Settlement Class, as defined above,
meets the requirements for class certification under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3).
6. The Court conditionally designates the law firms of Wolf
Popper
LLP and Berman Tabacco, as Settlement Class Counsel and
Plaintiff Zara Leventhal as class representative for purposes
of
this settlement. The Court designates, and approves, Angeion
Group to serve as Claim Administrator.
Streamlabs is a software company headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8Ra2U3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
Philip M. Black, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
- and -
Kristin J. Moody, Esq.
Alexander S. Vahdat, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6282
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph E. Addiego III, Esq.
Jean Fundakowski, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
50 California Street, 23rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 276-6500
Facsimile: (415) 276-6599
E-mail: joeaddiego@dwt.com
jeanfundakowski@dwt.com
SUPERNOVA PARTNERS: Jandreau Balks at Merger With Offerpad
----------------------------------------------------------
TERRY JANDREAU, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
stockholders, v. ALEXANDER KLABIN, SPENCER RASCOFF, KEN FOX, JIM
LANZONE, GREGG RENFREW, RAJEEV SINGH, ROBERT REID, MICHAEL CLIFTON,
MICHAEL BURNETT, BRIAN BAIR, and SUPERNOVA PARTNERS, LLC, Case No.
2024-0887 (Del. Ch., Aug. 26, 2024) is a verified stockholder class
action complaint against the Company's former directors and
controllers asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims challenging
the Company's merger which took Offerpad, Inc. public and was
completed on Sept. 1, 2024.
On Aug. 31, 2021, Supernova's stockholders approved the Merger.
On Sept. 1, 2021, the Merger was consummated, and Supernova was
renamed "Offerpad Solutions, Inc." Supernova common stock and
warrants began trading on the NYSE under the ticker symbols "OPAD"
and "OPADW" respectively.
The suit says that the Prospectus was materially deficient in
several respects, thereby deceiving the Supernova stockholders out
of exercising their redemption rights:
a. First, the Prospectus claimed that Supernova common stock
was worth $10 per share. This was materially false and
misleading. Supernova had no active operations of its own,
cash was its only asset, and it actually had less than $7.75
in net cash per share.
b. Second, Supernova solicited the merger with materially
misleading projections that missed their near-term estimates
by miles. For example, Offerpad's 2022 Adjusted EBITDA was
approximately negative $103 million, which was more than
100% worse than the projected negative $41 million.
Shortly after the closing of the Merger, the trading price of
Supernova common stock crashed to a small fraction of its
redemption value, thereby confirming that the Merger was neither
entirely fair nor anywhere close to it, the suit claims.
Plaintiff Jandreau was a continuous stockholder of Supernova,
including before and on the Redemption Date. The Plaintiff sent a
Section 220 demand to Offerpad on July 2, 2024.
Supernova is a management company, providing management oversight,
HR, IT and other essential functions to its member portfolio
companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Noah R. Gemma, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
- and -
Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 654-1888
TAKEDA PHARMA: Seeks to Seal Portion of Bid to Strike Declaration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC et al v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. et al. (AMITIZA ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:21-cv-11057-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order permitting to file under seal
portion of its motion to strike the declaration of Thomas M. Sobol
and Takeda's opposition to direct purchaser class plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
The Motion to Strike and the Opposition refer to materials that the
producing parties have designated as "Confidential" pursuant to the
Stipulated Protective Order as conditions for voluntary disclosure
by and between the parties, and discuss and/or quote such
materials.
Additionally, Takeda cites to, attaches, and quotes from materials
produced in discovery that have been designated as "Confidential."
Takeda has filed a redacted version of its Motion to Strike, its
Opposition and redacted or sealed versions of Exhibits 1-15
attached to the Declaration of Joshua S. Barlow filed in support
thereof on the Court's public docket in this action.
Takeda proposes that the Order sealing the materials described
above be lifted only upon further order of the Court, and that the
sealed documents be kept in the Clerk's nonpublic information file
during any post-impoundment period.
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mpuj5U at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Esq.
Joshua S. Barlow, Esq.
Andre Geverola, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
200 Clarendon Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 351-8052
E-mail: fkelly@haugpartners.com
jbarlow@haugpartners.com
andre.geverola@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Michael F. Brockmeyer, Esq.
Ralph E. Labaton, Esq.
HAUG PARTNERS LLP
1667 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 292-1530
Facsimile: (202) 292-1531
E-mail: mbrockmeyer@haugpartners.com
rlabaton@haugpartners.com
TSAROUHIS LAW: Conditional Cert. of Settlement Class Sought in Yoo
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNG YOO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. TSAROUHIS LAW GROUP,
LLC; AXIOM ACQUISITION VENTURES, LLC; Case No.
3:24-cv-05350-MAS-TJB (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff and the Defendants
will move the Court at a date to be determined, before the
Honorable Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, for an Order:
(1) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2), granting
conditional
certification of a settlement class defined as:
"All New Jersey consumers who TSAROUHIS LAW on behalf of
AXIOM
ACQUISITION, between April 19, 2023 and April 19, 2024,
collected or attempted to collect a debt, which included
interest";
(2) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e), approving
conditionally
the settlement of this action upon the terms and conditions
set
forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement annexed as
Exhibit "1" to the Joint Memorandum;
(3) Conditionally approving the defined Class for the purposes
of
Settlement;
(4) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e)(1)(B), approving the
form
and substance of, and the directing the manner of service
of,
the notice to the Class as set forth in the Exhibit "2",
which
is annexed to the Joint Memorandum;
(5) Setting a date, time and place for a Fairness Hearing; and
(6) Granting the parties to this action and the Class such other
and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Tsarouhis Law Group is a full-service collection law firm serving
New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WUtHkd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Wolf, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason R. Lipkin, Esq.
MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD PLLC
112 West 34th Street, Suite 1515
New York, NY 10120
Telephone: (646) 362-4048
E-mail: jlipkin@mcglinchey.com
TTEC SERVICES: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid Opposition
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK WILFONG, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TTEC SERVICES
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-01076-CNS-KAS (D. Colo.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the unopposed
motion to extend the deadline for filing Defendant's opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification by a 7-day
extension up to and including Sept. 10, 2024.
The Defendant seeks this extension in good faith and for good
cause. The Defendant does not anticipate that granting this
unopposed extension request will delay the overall progression of
this case or create a significant burden to this Court's docket.
Moreover, granting the Defendant's requested 7-day extension would
prevent hardship to the Defendant as it mounts its defense in this
action.
On Aug. 13, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Conditional
Certification, Opt-In Discovery, and Court-Authorized Notice to
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.
On Aug. 16, 2024, the Defendant filed a Motion to Stay Briefing on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification.
TTEC is a global provider of customer experience strategy,
technology and business process outsourcing solutions.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xHc70Y at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Arthur J. Rooney, Esq.
Daniel Graham, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
110 North Wacker, Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 263-5071
Facsimile: (312) 324-9516
E-mail: ARooney@perkinscoie.com
DGraham@perkinscoie.com
UNION PACIFIC: Class Cert Discovery in Black Suit Due June 25, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAYE BLACK and JEANNINE
TOLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No.
6:23-cv-01218-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel Mitchell
entered an amended class certification stage scheduling order as
follows:
Event Deadline/Setting
Substantial completion of document production Nov. 1, 2024
Jointly filed mediation notice March 10, 2025
Plaintiffs' disclosure of class expe1ts and March 17, 2025
production of reliance materials
Defendant's disclosure of class experts and May 9, 2025
production of reliance materials
Mediation completed May 30, 2025
Class certification discove1y completed June 25, 2025
Union Pacific is a Class I freight-hauling railroad that operates
8,300 locomotives over 32,200 miles routes in 23 U.S. states west
of Chicago and New Orleans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NGf9q2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED PARKS: Parties Must Confer Class Cert. Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eastman v. United Parks
and Resorts, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01534 (M.D. Fla., Filed Aug.
21, 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 nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Burton's Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN BURTON, v. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, DENNIS RICHARD MCDONOUGH and DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS, Case No. 8:23-cv-01372-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiff John Burton's Motion to Certify Class is denied
without prejudice as premature; and
2. The Plaintiff must pay the filing fee for this action or file
a
renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis within 21 days
from
the date of this Order. Failure to pay the filing fee or to
move
to proceed in forma pauperis within the time provided may
result
in the dismissal of this action, without prejudice, without
further notice.
In the motion, Burton, who is proceeding pro se, asks to certify a
class of similarly-situated individuals in connection with his
claim against the Department of Veterans Affairs. The motion is due
to be denied without prejudice because it is premature. Defendants
have not appeared in this action or filed a responsive pleading,
and discovery has not yet commenced.
In addition, this action cannot proceed because Burton has neither
paid the requisite filing fee for this civil action3 nor filed a
renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. This Court denied
Burton’s first motion to proceed in forma pauperis on May 15,
2024, and directed him to file a renewed motion to proceed in forma
pauperis along with an Amended Complaint. See Doc. 16. Although
Burton filed an Amended Complaint, he has not filed a renewed
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. He will be granted one
additional opportunity to do so.
U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SZ075Y at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED UROLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Miller Says
----------------------------------------------------------
GERALD MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. UNITED UROLOGY GROUP, Case No. e 1:24-cv-02486-BAH (D.
Md., Aug. 27, 2024) is a class action lawsuit against United
Urology for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive
information of its patients.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to the
Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect
it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully
accessed due to the Data Breach.
The information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's
and Class Members' full names, Social Security numbers, driver's
license numbers or state identification numbers, financial account
information, passport numbers, usernames and passwords, and dates
of birth and protected health information as defined by the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and approximately 10,000
Class Members, suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but
not limited to: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their
Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private
Information; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with
attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach;
(v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs
associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of
the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of their Private Information
consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails;
(viii) Plaintiff's Private Information being disseminated on the
dark web, according to Credit Karma; (ix) nominal damages; and (x)
the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private
Information.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in
ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they
should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief.
The Defendant is a "national network of urology specialists with
affiliate practices in Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, and
Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
900 W Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (212) 946-9305
E-mail: tpacheco@milberg.com
dlietz@milberg.com
VAXART INC: Seeks to Initially Seal Class Cert Docs in Himmelberg
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc.
et al. (VAXART, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No.
3:20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order preliminarily sealing certain documents cited in support
of their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and
Appointment of Class Counsel, which were produced and/or designated
as confidential by the Plaintiffs or third parties Vaxart, Inc. and
Attwill Medical Solutions, pending a final determination as to
whether such material should be sealed.
This administrative motion is based on the Plaintiffs', Vaxart's,
and Attwill’s designation of information produced in this
litigation and deposition transcripts taken in this litigation as
confidential or otherwise protected from public disclosure. T
The materials provisionally filed under seal are as follows:
-- Exhibit B to the Declaration of Joshua Rubin in Support of
Armistice Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Renewed
Motion
for Class Certification (“Rubin Declaration”), which are
excerpts
from a true and correct copy of the deposition transcript of
Vaxart 30(b)(6) representative Edward Berg dated June 6, 2024.
-- Exhibit D of to the Rubin Declaration, which are excerpts from
a
true and correct copy of the deposition transcript of Attwill
30(b)(6) representative William L.C. Jackson dated April 26,
2024.
-- Exhibit E to the Rubin Declaration, which are excerpts from a
true and correct copy of the deposition transcript of Sean
Tucker
dated April 27, 2024.
Armistice Defendants take no position on whether these documents
should be permanently sealed. Pursuant to subsection (f)(2) of
Local Rules 79-5, Armistice Defendants have served unredacted
copies of these documents on Plaintiffs, Vaxart, and Attwill.
Pursuant to subsection (f)(3) of Local Rule 79-5, Plaintiffs,
Vaxart, and Attwill have seven days to file a declaration
identifying the designated material they contend is "sealable."
Vaxart is an American biotechnology company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of oral recombinant
vaccines administered using temperature-stable tablets.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ffmr1V at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Neal R. Marder, Esq.
Joshua A. Rubin, Esq.
Sina Safvati, Esq.
Lillian Rand, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com
rubinj@akingump.com
ssafvati@akingump.com
lrand@akingump.com
VC MARIN: Faces Stephens Class Action Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marin LLC. The case
is captioned as DAVID MICHAEL STEPHENS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. VC MARIN LLC, Case No. CV0003634
(Cal. Super., Marin Cty., Aug. 7, 2024).
VC MARIN LLC is doing Business As VOLVO CARS MARIN, a California
limited liability company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Marie Lucio, Esq.
EMPLAW, LLP
2235 Encinitas Blvd, Ste 210
Encinitas, CA 92024-4357
Telephone Phone
Telephone: (760) 942-9433
Facsimile: (760) 452-4421
E-mail: christina@emplawllp.com
VISA INC: Bid to Decertify Class Tossed in B & R Supermarket Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as B & R SUPERMARKET, INC.,
d/b/a Milam's Market, GROVE LIQUORS LLC, STROUK GROUP LLC, d/b/a
Monsieur Marcel, and PALERO FOOD CORP. and CAGUEYES FOOD CORP.,
d/b/a Fine Fare Supermarket, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. VISA INC., VISA U.S.A., INC.,
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INC., AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, and
DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, Case No. 1:17-cv-02738-MKB-JAM
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margo Brodie entered an order denying
Visa and Mastercard's motion to decertify the Class.
The Court finds that Dr. Abrantes-Metz's references to the
involvement of large merchants in Defendants’ decision to set the
October 2015 Liability Shift date do not undermine the Court’s
earlier conclusion that Plaintiffs satisfy the typicality
requirement.
The Court therefore concludes that Class Representatives remain
typical of the Class, and decertification is not warranted on this
basis.
The Plaintiffs commenced this class action against the Defendants,
alleging violations of the Sherman Act, and state antitrust and
consumer protection laws of California, Florida, and New York, and
asserting unjust enrichment claims. The Plaintiffs' claims arise
out of Defendants' processes for adopting the EMV standard for card
transactions in the United States.
On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification.
On July 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for class
certification.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational payment card services
corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=onn54N at no extra
charge.[CC]
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Dack Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY DACK, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; et al; v. VOLKSWAGEN
GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; AND VOLKSWAGEN,
AG, A FOREIGN CORPORATION; Case No. 4:20-cv-00615-RK (W.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Roseann Ketchmark entered an order certifying the
following Settlement Class consisting of:
All persons and entities who purchased or leased, in the United
States or Puerto Rico, certain of the following model year
vehicles
equipped with an automatic emergency braking system, which were
imported and distributed by VWGoA for sale or lease in the
United
States or Puerto Rico, and which are designated by VIN in
Exhibit 4
of the Settlement Agreement: model year 2019-2023 Volkswagen
Arteon; model year 2018-2023 Volkswagen Atlas; model year
2020-2023
Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport; model year 2016-2017 Volkswagen
CC;
model year 2016-2021 Volkswagen Golf; 2016- 2019 and 2022-2023
Volkswagen Golf R; 2016-2019 Volkswagen Golf Sportwagen;
2016-2023
Volkswagen GTI; model year 2016- 2019 Volkswagen e-Golf; model
year
2021-2023 Volkswagen ID.4; model year 2016-2023 Volkswagen
Jetta;
model year 2016-2022 Volkswagen Passat; model year 2022-2023
Volkswagen Taos; model year 2018-2023 Volkswagen Tiguan; model
year
2015-2017 Volkswagen Touareg; model year 2015-2020 and 2022-2023
Audi A3, model year 2019-2023 Audi Q3, model year 2013-2023 Audi
A4, model year 2013-2023 Audi A5, model year 2013-2023 Audi Q5,
model year 2012-2023 Audi A6, model year 2012-2023 Audi A7,
model
year 2011-2023 Audi A8, model year 2017-2023 Audi Q7, model year
2019-2023 Audi Q8, model year 2019-2023 Audi e-tron, model year
2022-2023 Audi e-tron GT, and model year 2022- 2023 Audi Q4 e-
tron."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) all Judges who have
presided over the Action and their spouses; (b) all current
employees, officers, directors, agents and representatives of
Defendants, and their family members; (c) any affiliate, parent
or
subsidiary of Defendants and any entity in which Defendants have
a
controlling interest; (d) anyone acting as a used car dealer;
(e)
anyone who purchased a Settlement Class Vehicle for the purpose
of
commercial resale; (f) anyone who purchased a Settlement Class
Vehicle with salvaged title and/or any insurance company who
acquired a Settlement Class Vehicle as a result of a total loss;
(g) any insurer of a Settlement Class Vehicle; (i) issuers of
extended vehicle warranties and service contracts; (i) any
Settlement Class Member who, prior to the date of the Settlement
Agreement, settled with and released Defendants or any Released
Parties from any Released Claims; and (j) any Settlement Class
Member who files a timely and proper Request for Exclusion from
the
Settlement Class.
The Court grants final approval of the Class Settlement as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement and all of its terms and
provisions.
Volkswagen Group is the North American operational headquarters,
and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of
Germany.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dnpEJc at no extra
charge.[CC]
VPC IMPACT: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ATG FUND II LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VPC
IMPACT ACQUISITION HOLDINGS SPONSOR II, LLC, BRENDAN CARROLL,
GORDON WATSON, CARLY ALTIERI, JOHN MARTIN, JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, and
KAI SCHMITZ, VPC IMPACT ACQUISITION HOLDINGS II, Case No.
1:23-cv-01978-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of
itself and the Settlement Class, will move the Court on Sept. 26,
2024, for entry of:
(1) an Order certifying the Settlement Class and appointing ATG
as
Lead Plaintiff and Funicular Funds LP and Camac Fund LP as
additional Class Representatives and Morris Kandinov LLP as
Class Counsel for the purposes of the Settlement;
(2) a Judgment and Order approving the Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; and
(3) an Order approving the proposed Plan of Allocation as fair,
reasonable, and adequate
VPC is a special purpose acquisition company intended to pursue a
business combination with a global high-growth business.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hZdrYk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron T. Morris, Esq.
Andrew W. Robertson, Esq.
MORRIS KANDINOV LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 431-7473
E-mail: aaron@moka.law
andrew@moka.law
WALMART INC: Hawkins Bid Remand to State Court Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW HAWKINS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WALMART, INC.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00374-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an
order denying the motion to remand to state court, and request for
jurisdictional discovery.
Hawkins has not made a showing that jurisdictional discovery will
reveal that the amount in controversy is not met or that the court
lacks jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, Walmart has sufficiently established that this action
meets CAFA’s $5 million jurisdictional requirement.
Walmart submitted a declaration from its merchandising director
that the sales of Avocado Oil from its brick-and-mortar stores
exceeded $3 million dollars from February 29, 2020, through
February 29, 2024. Hawkins does not challenge the adequacy of the
declaration and the court does not find any evidentiary deficiency
in the declaration. As such, Walmart has provided sufficient
evidence to support its contention that the compensatory damages at
issue exceed $3 million.
Plaintiff Matthew Hawkins brings this putative class action against
defendant Walmart, Inc., alleging false and deceptive advertising
and labeling in connection with the sale of Walmart's Great Value
Avocado Oil.
Hawkins alleges he purchased a bottle of Avocado Oil believing it
was pure avocado oil as represented by Walmart.
Hawkins alleges the Avocado Oil was adulterated with other oils and
that he and the putative class members would not have purchased it,
or would have paid less for it, if they had known that the product
was not pure avocado oil.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States and 23 other countries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Crnini at no extra
charge.[CC]
WARNER MUSIC: Filing for Class Cert Response Extended to Sept. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HALL, an individual;
and LANCE HOPPEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., a Delaware Corporation;
WARNER MUSIC INC., a Delaware Corporation; and WARNER RECORDS INC.,
a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00457 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Aleta Trauger entered an order granting the Parties'
joint motion to extend response and reply deadlines related to
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The deadline for the Defendants to file their Response is extended
to Sept. 19, 2024, and the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their
Reply is extended to Nov. 14, 2024.
Warner Music is an American multinational entertainment and record
label conglomerate headquartered in New York City.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SL0X1h at no extra
charge.[CC]
WARNER MUSIC: Must File Class Cert Reply in Hall Suit by Sept. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HALL, an individual;
and LANCE HOPPEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., a Delaware Corporation;
WARNER MUSIC INC., a Delaware Corporation; and WARNER RECORDS INC.,
a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00457 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting Defendants a
10-day extension of time, through and including Sept. 19, 2024, to
file their Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification,
and a ten-day extension of time, through and including, Nov. 14,
2024, for the Plaintiffs to file their Reply in Support of the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
Warner Music is an American multinational entertainment and record
label conglomerate.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V8jQyo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Matthew A. Pearson, Esq.
Bobby Pouya, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8304
E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
bpouya@pwfirm.com
mapearson@pwfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
Nicole Ramirez-Jones, Esq.
Haley G. Clark, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law
ramirezjones@kiesel.law
clark@kiesel.law
- and -
Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
Daniel B. Lifschitz, Esq.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 975-1080
Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
djohnson@jjllplaw.com
dlifschitz@jjllplaw.com
- and -
John J. Griffin, Esq.
Michael A. Johnson, Esq.
KAY GRIFFIN PLLC
222 Second Ave. North, Suite 340M
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 742-4800
Facsimile: (615) 742-4801
E-mail: john.griffin@kaygriffin.com
mjohnson@kaygriffin.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lucas T. Elliot, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLP
150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1900
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 251-5565
E-mail: lelliot@fbtlaw.com
- and -
Rollin A. Ransom, Esq.
Sean A. Commons, Esq.
Lauren M. De Lilly, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 896-6000
E-mail: rransom@sidley.com
scommons@sidley.com
ldelilly@sidley.com
WESTERN CONFERENCE: Class Cert Discovery Extended to Nov. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paieri v. Western
Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-00922 (W.D. Wash., Filed June 19, 2023), the Hon. Judge
Lauren King entered an order granting the parties stipulated motion
to continue deadline.
-- The deadline to complete discovery on class certification
issues
is extended to Nov. 1, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.)
The Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Plan was established in
1955 through collective bargaining between labor and management.
The company provides plan coverage, participation and vesting,
losing and protecting benefits, normal retirement, disability
retirement, and other services.[CC]
WESTERN CONFERENCE: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PAIERI, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WESTERN CONFERENCE
OF TEAMSTERS PENSION TRUST; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE WESTERN
CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS PENSION TRUST, Case No. 2:23-cv-00922-LK
(W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying
the current case schedule set forth in the Court's July 15, 2024
Order modifying case schedule by continuing the deadline for
discovery on class certification issues, including taking expert
witness depositions, from Oct. 15, 2024 to Nov. 1, 2024.
In light of scheduling conflicts of the Parties' expert witnesses
and counsel, the Parties need additional time to complete expert
witness depositions relating to class certification.
Accordingly, the Parties agree that good cause exists to continue
the deadline to complete discovery regarding class certification
issues relating to class certification from Oct. 15, 2024 to Nov.
1, 2024. This extension will not require modification of any other
pending case deadlines.
Western Conference offers multi-employer pension plan.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JUXyPh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael M. Licata, Esq.
Susan Martin, Esq.
Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 206B
Seattle, WA 98103
The Defendants are represented by:
Clarissa A. Kang, Esq.
Angel L. Garrett, Esq.
Dylan D. Rudolph, Esq.
Joseph C. Faucher, Esq.
Brian D. Murray, Esq.
TRUCKER HUSS, APC
135 Main Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
- and -
Russell J. Reid
Thomas A. Leahy
REID, BALLEW, LEAHY & HOLLAND,
L.L.P
100 West Harrison Street, N. Tower, No. 300
Seattle, WA 98119
WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Graber Suit w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETH GRABER, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. WESTFIELD INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-03313-RBS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge R.
Barclay Surrick entered an order that the Defendant's motion to
dismiss is granted and dismiss Plaintiffs claims without prejudice.
-- The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 45 days of
this
Memorandum/Order.
Accordingly, because the Court dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, they
decline to certify Plaintiff’s putative class. The Plaintiff may
bring her class action allegations again in an amended complaint.
Plaintiffs breach of contract claim is not fit for judicial
consideration. This is because, based on the Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff has not yet completed the condition precedent—that
is, completing the repairs to her home—that would impose the
obligation on Defendant to pay her the "full replacement cost, "
whatever that ultimately entitles her to.
Plaintiff, Beth Graber, brings a putative class action against her
insurer, Defendant, Westfield Insurance Company, purporting to
represent herself and all similarly situated policyholders.
The Plaintiff alleges that after her home was damaged in a fire,
Defendant violated the clear terms of her policy with Defendant by
stating that it would not pay her the full amount she alleges that
she is entitled to under the policy and imposing a condition on her
recovery not found in the policy.
On July 5, 2020, the Plaintiff's home was damaged by a fire. The
Plaintiff and her public adjuster/agent promptly notified the
Defendant of this damage.
On July 20, 2020, the Defendant acknowledged that Plaintiff’s
claim was covered by the Policy.
On Dec. 2, 2020, the Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff's public
adjuster providing an overview of her claim.
On June 28, 2021, Plaintiff commenced a putative class action suit
against Defendant in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas,
purporting to represent:
"All persons, who have been policyholders of homeowners'
insurance
policies sold in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by Defendant
(and/or its subsidiaries, affiliates and/or related entities)
with
Loss Settlement provisions similar to the provision found in the
Policy, who have made a claim to Defendant for dwelling coverage
as
a result of damage caused by a covered loss, and as to whom
Defendant has paid less than full replacement cost within the
six
years prior to the filing of this Complaint."
The Plaintiff is the sole owner of a home in North Wales,
Pennsylvania. She insured the home under a policy issued by the
Defendant.
Westfield Insurance is a multi-line provider of business property
and liability insurance, personal lines insurance, and agribusiness
insurance, and surety bonds.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2y2fc5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Tjahjono
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOKKY TJAHJONO, and MILES
BLACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, d/b/a WABTEC
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00531-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
William Stickman IV entered an order certifying the following
Settlement Class:
"All Persons residing within the United States whose Personal
Information was potentially compromised in the Cyberattack."
Westinghouse Air is an American company formed by the merger of the
Westinghouse Air Brake Company and MotivePower Industries
Corporation in 1999.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NaqdF2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
WESTLAKE CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Westlake 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 9, 2024, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the caustic soda antitrust class suit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York.
The Company and other caustic soda producers were named as
defendants in multiple purported class action civil lawsuits filed
since March 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York.
The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic
(U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers.
The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Olin Corporation,
K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olin),
Occidental Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem, Shintech
Incorporated and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.
Each of the lawsuits is filed on behalf of the respective named
plaintiff or plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of either
direct purchasers or indirect purchasers of caustic soda in the
U.S.
The plaintiffs in the putative class for such direct purchasers
seek $861 in single damages from the defendants, in addition to
treble damages and attorney's fees.
The plaintiffs in the putative class for such indirect purchasers
seek approximately $500 in single damages from the defendants, in
addition to treble damages (if permitted under applicable state
law) and injunctive relief.
In December 2023, the Court denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and the Second Circuit subsequently
denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion for an interlocutory
appeal for that ruling.
The Company recorded an estimated liability in the amount of $19 in
2023 in connection with its entry into a settlement agreement with
the direct purchaser plaintiffs.
However, in June 2024, the Court declined preliminary approval of
the settlement and rejected certification of a settlement class.
As a result, the Company terminated the settlement agreement and
reversed the $19 recorded liability.
In July 2024, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which the
Company intends to oppose.
The indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification
remains pending.
Beginning in October 2020, similar class action proceedings were
also filed in Canada before the Superior Court of Québec as well
as before the Federal Court.
These proceedings seek the certification or authorization of a
class action on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased
caustic soda (including, in one of the cases, those who merely
purchased products containing caustic soda) from October 1, 2015
through the present or such date deemed appropriate by the court.
On December 10, 2021, the Superior Court of Québec stayed its
proceedings until after a final certification decision is released
in the Federal Court proceedings.
At this time, the Company is not able to estimate the impact, if
any, that these lawsuits could have on the Company's consolidated
financial statements either in the current period or in future
periods.
Westlake is a vertically-integrated global manufacturer and
marketer of performance and essential materials and housing and
infrastructure products for diverse consumer and industrial
markets, including residential construction, flexible and rigid
packaging, automotive products, healthcare products, water
treatment, wind turbines, coatings as well as other durable and
non-durable goods.
WHITEPAGES INC: Jackson Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to N.D.W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL JACKSON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. WHITEPAGES, INC., Case
No. CC-04-2024-C-41 (Filed July 22, 2024) was removed from the
Circuit Court of Braxton County to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, on Aug. 26, 2024.
The Northern District of West Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:24-cv-00080-TSK to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of Daniel's Law, West Virginia Code
section 5A-8-24(e)(1)-(2).
Whitepages is a provider of online directory services, fraud
screening, background checks and identity verification for
consumers and businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason E. Causey, Esq.
BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC
1358 National Road
Wheeling, WV 26003
Telephone: (304) 242-8410
E-mail: jcausey@bordaslaw.com
- and -
Phillip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, PA
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Natalie C. Schaefer, Esq.
Caleb B. David, Esq.
SHUMAN McCUSKEY SLICER PLLC
1411 Virginia Street East, Suite 200
Charleston, WV 25339-3953
Telephone: (304) 345-1400
Facsimile: (304) 343-1826
E-mail: nschaefer@shumanlaw.com
cdavid@shumanlaw.com
WOODSTREAM CORP: Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Opposition Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY MARONEY AND HENRY
H. HEUMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WOODSTREAM CORPORATION, Case No. 7:19-cv-08294-KMK-JCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting
leave to file certain portions of its Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification under seal.
In sum, Woodstream's legitimate privacy interests in protecting its
confidential business information at issue in this case outweigh
any presumption of access.
On June 25, 2024, Plaintiffs Henry Heumann and Gregory Maroney
filed a motion for class certification.
Woodstream manufactures and markets pest control and wildlife
caring and control products.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2IvRCH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robyn E. Bladow, Esq.
Savannah L. Jensen, Esq.
Jake A. Feiler, Esq.
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
555 South Flower Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-8400
Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
E-mail: robyn.bladow@kirkland.com
savannah.jensen@kirkland.com
jake.feiler@kirkland.com
lefkowitz@kirkland.com
WORKERS CREDIT: Encarnacion Seeks Class Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIOMY ENCARNACION,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WORKERS CREDIT UNION, DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
4:21-cv-40077-MRG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order approving the proposed class action settlement and
awarding attorney's fees and costs.
The moving party certifies that Plaintiff's counsel has in good
faith met and conferred with Defendant's counsel regarding the
matters prior to filing this Motion.
Workers Credit Union is a state-chartered credit union
headquartered in Littleton, Massachusetts.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bJuODt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
MCCUNE LAW GROUP
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO VERCOSKI
KUSEL WECK BRANDT, APC
3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
esk@mccunewright.com
- and -
Christine M. Craig, Esq.
SHAHEEN & GORDON, P.A.
Dover, NH 03821-0977
Telephone: (603) 749-5000
E-mail: ccraig@shaheengordon.com
XE HOLDING: Court Dismisses Brink 4th Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL BRINK, et al., v.
XE HOLDING, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00325-MSN-LRV (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff entered an order:
-- granting Defendant GLS's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth
Amended Complaint; and
-- dismissing all claims against Defendant GLS in Plaintiffs'
Fourth
Amended Complaint with prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to close this civil Action.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not alleged that GLS could
have transferred them to a position in the United States or a light
duty position in a "non-war zone." While "reassignment to a vacant
position" may be a reasonable accommodation, the Complaint does not
say anything about the existence of such vacant positions at the
time Plaintiffs were fired, or allege that Plaintiffs would have
been qualified for those positions.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged
that their charges put GLS on notice of their class claims.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Global Linguist
Solutions' ("GLS") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Transferred
Fourth Amended Complaint. Upon consideration of the pleadings and
for the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion
and dismiss Plaintiffs Harbee Kreesha and Mohsen Alsaleh's claims
against GLS.
Plaintiffs sued GLS on their own behalf and as representatives of
similarly situated GLS employees5 for discrimination under the
ADA.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2rM6fp at no extra
charge.[CC]
YOUNG LIVING: Seeks Reconsideration of June 13, 2024 Order
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE O'SHAUGHNESSY,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, v. YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC D/B/A YOUNG LIVING
ESSENTIAL OILS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00470-HCN-CMR (D. Utah), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order reconsidering its oral
ruling of June 13, 2024 denying Young Living's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.
The Court should reverse its June 13, 2024 order denying Young
Living's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (MPSJ) for two
reasons: first, the Plaintiff has introduced new, previously
unavailable evidence that eliminates the basis for the Court's
denial of the MPSJ; and second, reversal is necessary to correct
clear error and prevent manifest injustice as to Young Living.
On July 15, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Supplemental Memorandum,
making clear that she does not seek rescission of the Membership
Agreement because she no longer owns the alleged security.
On Aug. 15, 2024, the Court denied Young Living’s request for
interlocutory review.
The Plaintiff enrolled as a Member of Young Living in 2015 by
agreeing to the terms and conditions of Young Living's Member
Agreement, Compensation Plan, and 2014 Policies & Procedures.
In 2018, Young Living updated its Membership Agreement and notified
Plaintiff of the relevant changes, which included the addition of a
class action waiver. Less than a year later, Ms. O'Shaughnessy
filed this class action against Young Living in the Western
District of Texas on behalf of a putative class of "well over one
hundred thousand members."
Young Living is a multi-level marketing company based in Lehi,
Utah.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 28, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u5La7g at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeremy A. Fielding, Esq.
Jon David Kelley, Esq.
Rachael A. Rezabek, Esq.
Aysha M. Spencer, Esq.
Stefan H. Atkinson, Esq.
Christopher X. Fernandez, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
4550 Travis Street
Dallas, TX 75205
Telephone: (214) 972-1770
Facsimile: (214) 972-1771
E-mail: jeremy.fielding@kirkland.com
jon.kelley@kirkland.com
rachael.rezabek@kirkland.com
aysha.spencer@kirkland.com
stefan.atkinson@kirkland.com
christopher.fernandez@kirkland.com
- and -
Robert S. Clark, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Hunt, Esq.
David C. Reymann, Esq.
Bryan S. Johansen, Esq.
PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
101 S 200 E Ste 700
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-7840
Facsimile: (801) 532-7750
E-mail: rclark@parrbrown.com
jhunt@parrbrown.com
dreymann@parrbrown.com
bjohansen@parrbrown.com
YUSEN LOGISTICS: Bermudez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ivan Bermudez, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS) INC.; STAFFMARK
INVESTMENT LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV18078
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 28, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-07339.
The Complaint alleges seven causes of action which Plaintiff
pursues on a class action basis: failure to pay wages for all hours
worked at minimum wage in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay
overtime wages for daily overtime worked in violation of Labor
Code; failure to authorize or permit meal periods in violation of
Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit rest periods in
violation of Labor Code; failure to provide complete and accurate
wage statements in violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay
all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of
employment in violation of Labor Code; and unfair business
practices, in violation of Business and Professions Code
Sections.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel B. Chammas, Esq.
Min K. Kim, Esq.
FORD HARRISON LLP
350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 237-2400
Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
Email: dchammas@fordharrison.com
mkim@fordharrison.com
ZILLOW GROUP: Jaeger Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY JAEGER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ZILLOW GROUP,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01551-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas Zilly entered an order that:
(1) Plaintiff Jeremy Jaeger's motion for class certification,
appointment of class representative, and appointment of
class
counsel is granted.
(2) The following Class is certified pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):
"All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Zillow Group, Inc. Class A common stock or Class C capital
stock during the period from Aug. 5, 2021, to Nov. 2, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby.
(3) The following entities and individuals are excluded from the
Class: (i) all entities or individuals who, after receiving
notice about this action and the certification of the Class,
timely opt out of the Class; (ii) Defendant Zillow Group,
Inc.;
(iii) Defendants Richard Barton, Allen Parker, and Jeremy
Wacksman, and their immediate families, legal
representatives,
heirs, agents, successors, and assigns; (iv) Zillow's other
directors and officers during the Class Period and
subsequent
thereto, and their immediate families, legal
representatives,
heirs, agents, successors, and assigns; (v) Zillow's legal
representatives, agents, affiliates, subsidiaries,
successors,
and assigns; (vi) Defendants' liability insurance carriers
and
any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof, and (vii) any entity
in
which Executive Defendants or a member of their immediate
families currently have, or had during the Class Period, a
controlling interest.
(4) Lead Plaintiff Jeremy Jaeger is appointed as Class
Representative. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is appointed
as
Class Counsel; Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is
appointed
as Local Class Counsel.
(5) The parties are directed to meet and confer and to file, no
later than Sept. 30, 2024, a Joint Status Report containing
their proposed plan for providing notice to the Class, along
with a draft form of notice. If the parties cannot agree on
such plan and/or notice, then they shall state their
respective
views in the Joint Status Report.
(6) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all
counsel of record.
In sum, in opposing the pending motion for class certification,
Defendants have failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence
that the alleged misrepresentations and subsequent corrective
disclosures had no impact on Zillow’s stock price. Accordingly,
Jaeger is entitled to Basic's presumption of reliance, and the
Court concludes that common questions of fact predominate, the
Court says.
Zillow operates several real estate websites including zillow.com
and streeteasy.com.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lOBGaI at no extra
charge.[CC]
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE: Hale Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zurich American
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Krystal Hale, all others
similarly situated v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No.
24CV015938 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 9, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Zurich -- https://www.zurichna.com/ -- provides specialized
commercial insurance for various industries, ensuring your business
is well-protected with individualized solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Phone: 213-488-6555
Fax: 213-488-6554
Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***