/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240912.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 12, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 184 Headlines 3D SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Securities Suit with Prejudice ACOUSTIC VIBES: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ADAMAS ONE: Shareholder Suit in Nevada Court Voluntarily Dismissed ALLIANCE COAL: Mismanaged Savings Plan, Brewer Suit Alleges ALLSTATE FIRE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sims' 2nd Amended Complaint AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Middleton Allowed to File 3rd Amended Complaint AMERICAN ZURICH: Gross Suit Remanded to Clay County Circuit Court ANALOG DEVICES: Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal Dismissed ANGARA INC: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ANYWHERE ADVISORS: Rotschild Amended Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ARKANSAS: Summary Judgment Granted in Farella v. Public Defenders AVI FOOD SYSTEMS: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BCE-MACH III: Must Produce Acquisition Agreement in Sagacity Suit BE VITAMINS HEALTH: Vega Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BETTER EARTH: Court Dismisses Claims Against BEI in Quesada Suit BG RETAIL: Carr Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Practices BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: DeFelippis Sues Over Deceptive Practices BLUEMERCURY INC: Claude Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES: Carlson Files Suit in D. Minnesota BOIRON INC: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Fagnani Claims BONOBOS INC: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BRINKER INT'L: SC Denies Petition for Certiorari in Payment Row BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Doherty Sues Over Prohibited Transactions CALIBRATED HEALTHCARE: Adams Files Suit in C.D. California CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT: Sutton Suit Removed to C.D. California CHARMING CHARLIE: Mackey Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls CHILDREN’S PLACE: Beckford Sues Over Fake-Discount Scheme CINEMARK USA: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CLUB PILATES: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Bunting Suit Claims COMMUNICATION FEDERAL: Hall Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data CONAGRA FOODS: Ruiz Suit Removed to E.D. California CONSOLIDATED COMMUNITY: Joseph Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection CONSUMER CELLULAR: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CONSUMER SAFETY: Bid for Arbitration Granted; Mallory Suit Stayed DIAMONDS DIRECT: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ELITE ONE: Underpays Security Guards, Wesley Suit Alleges ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New York Court ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit Over Disclosures FAMILY DOLLAR: Berkley Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida FANEUIL INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California FEVID TRANSPORT: Dees Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages FIVESTRATA LLC: Bianco Suit Removed to D. Arizona FLUENT INC: Settlement Reached in Berman TCPA Suit FORWARD MANAGEMENT: De Medeiros Sues Over Unpaid Wages GAMESTOP CORP: Magnuson Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Practices GENESIS HEALTH: C.D. Illinois Narrows Claims in Doe Class Suit GOOGLE LLC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Isaacs Infringement Suit GRILLO'S PICKLES: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HERTZ GLOBAL: Lead Roles Appointed in Doller Securities Suit HOBBY ENTERPRISES: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Myers Sues Over Religious Discrimination JELD-WEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Gonzalez Class Suit Denied as Moot JEN BULLER: Gottlieb Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York JERICO PICTURES: Duncan Sues Over Major Data Breach JOSE VALENCIA: Threatened of Arrest in Andrade-Barteldes Suit JOY CONE: Davey Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Cone Packers KASEYA US LLC: Machado Suit Removed to S.D. Florida LIFE EXTENSION: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LOTTERY.COM INC: Court Dismisses Million Securities Suit LUXURBAN HOTELS: Faces Pack Shareholder Suit Over Hotel Lease MAGELLAN HEALTH: Care Coordinators Class Certified in Deakin Suit MARU SPORTS: Alvarado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MDL 2873: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Boggs Suit Claims MDL 2873: Bowman Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Cater Suit Alleges MDL 2873: Faces Wood Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects MDL 2873: Nichols Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products MDL 2873: Schmidt Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products MDL 2873: Smith Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products MDL 2903: Settlement in Poppe v. Fisher Price Wins Initial Nod MDL 2903: Settlement in Willis v. Fisher Price Wins Initial Nod METROPICA RESIDENTIAL: Herzburn Sues Over Unlawful Calls MEYER CORPORATION: Brennan Sues Over Unlawful Text Messages MIGOM GLOBAL: AMJ Global Sues Over Securities Laws Violation MNGI DIGESTIVE: Schroeder Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII MOBIVITY HOLDINGS: Faces Abboud TCPA Suit in Arizona Court MONSANTO COMPANY: Roberts Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONTE NIDO HOLDINGS: Aragon Files Suit in S.D. Florida NIPPON SHEET GLASS: Harpel Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages O POSITIVE: Connor Suit Removed to C.D. California OCLARO INC: Settlement Reached in Saisravan Securities Suit ODDITY TECH: Hoare Suit Transferred to S.D. New York OHANA MILITARY: Bid to Dismiss Powell's Amended Complaint OK'd OMEGAPRO FOREX: United Investor Sues Over Money Laundering & Fraud PECO FOODS: Caldwell Sues Over Failure to Protect Information PERMIAN RESOURCES: Link Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico PETS ETC INC: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PRIME HYDRATION: Heaven Sues Over Wiretapping of Communications PROBODY WAREHOUSE: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RES-CARE INC: Faces Bolden Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Indiana SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Court Tosses Giana Copyright Infringement Suit SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Suit Tossed; Baer May File 2nd Amended Complaint SK DESIGN: Karim Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store SOUTH SHORE MENTAL: Tozzi Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. SPA NAIL: $21K in Attorney's Fees and Costs Awarded in Li Suit SPECIALIZED LOAN: Proposed Discovery Plans in Layton Partly Granted ST. CLOUD STATE: Wins Bid for Relief From Judgment in Portz Suit SUPER MICRO: Averza Sues Over False and Misleading Statements TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit Over COVID Tes TARGET CORPORATION: Mulloy Sues Over Misrepresentation of Product TERRY LAIN MD: Seeks Chapter 11 Bankruptcy TOURO COLLEGE: Filing of Amended Yodice Class Complaint Ordered TRANSFORM SR BRANDS: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UBS FINANCIAL: Sweeps Clients' Uninvested Cash Balance, Davitt Says UNITED STATES: Teryaeva-Reed's Reconsideration Bid OK'd in Part WEB EYE: Franks Sues Over Hidden Fees for Corrective Contact Lenses WHITTAKER CLARK: Claims vs. Brenntag Belong to Ch.11 Estate XZY INC: Visually Impaired Can't Access Online Store, Gaspa Says YOUNG CONSULTING: Xavier Balks at Compromised Personal Info ********* 3D SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Securities Suit with Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- 3D Systems Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for he quarterly period ended March 31, 202, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 20, 2024, that the court held a final fairness hearing on November 21, 2023 and subsequently entered the Order and Final Judgement approving the Securities Class Action settlement and dismissing a Securities Class Action claims with prejudice on January 4, 2024. The time for any party to appeal expired on February 5, 2024, and no appeals were filed. The company and certain of its current and former executive officers have been named as defendants action styled "In re 3D Systems Securities Litigation," No. 1:21-cv-01920-NGG-TAM. On July 14, 2021, the court appointed a lead plaintiff for the putative class and approved his choice of lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed his consolidated amended complaint on September 13, 2021, alleging that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions, and that the current and former executive officers named as defendants are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of the company's common stock between May 6, 2020 and March 5, 2021, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint on February 15, 2022, and the motion was fully briefed in May 2022. On October 28, 2022, the parties notified the District Court that they reached an agreement in principle resolving this action, and on December 19, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a motion seeking entry of an order preliminarily approving the settlement and establishing notice procedures. On June 5, 2023, following the district court's referral of lead plaintiff's motion to a Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on the motion, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the district court grant lead plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The District Court adopted the report and recommendation and preliminarily approved the settlement on July 19, 2023. 3D Systems Corporation is into healthcare solutions and industrial solutions segments which include 3D printers and corresponding materials, digitizers, software licenses, 3D scanners and haptic devices. ACOUSTIC VIBES: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Valencia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ACOUSTIC VIBES MUSIC, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06585 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's www.acousticvibesmusic.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ADAMAS ONE: Shareholder Suit in Nevada Court Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Adamas One Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2024, that on June 28, 2024, the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss the claims and filed a voluntary dismissal of all of the claims of an existing lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (Case no. 2:22-cv-00256) between Theodorus Strous, a shareholder of Scio Diamond Technology Corp., and Scio executives, brought as a proposed derivative shareholder class action filed on January 10, 2023, where the company was joined as a defendant. A second amended complaint added the company and its CEO John G. Grdina as defendants, expanding the claim to assert a proposed derivative shareholder class action against the company as well as Scio. The company filed a motion to dismiss and joined in Scio's motion to dismiss on February 17, 2023. The case was re-assigned to Judge Cristina D. Silva on July 5, 2023. After a long period of delay, on June 14, 2024, the court ordered additional briefing on the argument based on the company's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The briefing commenced on June 28, 2024. As a result of the court's inclination to dismiss, Adamas a diamond company that produces single crystal laboratory grown diamonds and diamond materials. ALLIANCE COAL: Mismanaged Savings Plan, Brewer Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH BREWER, JOSHUA CHUCK, and JASON MOODY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLIANCE COAL, LLC, THE BOARD OF ALLIANCE COAL, INC., THE 401(k) INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF ALLIANCE COAL, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00406-SH (N.D. Okla., September 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of their fiduciary duties pursuant to Sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the duties they owed to the Alliance Coal, LLC and Affiliates Profit Sharing and Savings Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to control the Plan's administrative and recordkeeping (RKA) costs. The Defendants' failure stems from the use of Plan participant forfeited funds to reduce company contributions to the Plan instead of using the funds to reduce or eliminate the amounts charged to Plan participants for RKA services. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, the suit contends. Alliance Coal, LLC is a coal mining company with a principal place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark D. Lyons, Esq. LYONS & CLARK, INC. Two Main Plaza Bldg. 616 South Main, Suite 201 Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 599-8844 Facsimile: (918) 599-8585 Email: lyonscla@swbell.net - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com ALLSTATE FIRE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sims' 2nd Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JAMES SIMS, TERRIE SIMS, NEAL COMEAU, LILIANA COMEAU, JENIFER SIDDAL, JON HOWELL, TERRY DUHON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER'S SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00580-JKP-HJB (W.D. Tex.), Judge Jason Pulliam of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, denies the Allstate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. The lawsuit arises from the parties' dispute following a covered loss under the Plaintiffs' homeowner's insurance policies. Each of the Plaintiff parties incurred damage to their home and submitted claims for coverage to one of the Allstate Defendants. The parties do not dispute the damage to each property is covered under each policy. The dispute arises in how the Allstate Defendants calculate the initial payment to the insureds for the covered loss. Plaintiffs James and Terrie Sims purchased a homeowner's policy from Allstate Fire and Casualty Company; Plaintiffs Neal and Liliana Comeau, Plaintiff Jon Howell, and Plaintiff Terry Duhon each purchased their individual homeowner's policies from Allstate Vehicle and Property Company; Plaintiff Jenifer Siddall purchased a homeowner's policy from Allstate Indemnity Company. The parties do not dispute Plaintiffs' policies are replacement cost insurance policies, under which there is a two-step process for recovery of loss payments. At the first step (Step One), the Allstate Defendants pay an insured the actual cash value ("ACV") of the insured loss when the home is damaged or destroyed. At the second step (Step Two), if the insured chooses to complete repairs or replacement of the home, they may then seek reimbursement for the actual cost of repairs under the replacement cost value provisions of the policy. The parties do not dispute that the Plaintiffs' policies provide the initial ACV payment in Step One may include a deduction for depreciation; however, the policies do not provide a specific definition of ACV or depreciation. In each of the Plaintiffs' losses, the Allstate Defendants calculated their initial ACV payments by estimating the cost to repair or replace the damage with new building materials and then subtracted depreciation for both the cost of materials and the anticipated cost of labor. The Plaintiffs do not dispute this initial ACV payment may include depreciation for materials, but dispute whether depreciation for anticipated cost of labor may be deducted. In the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege the Allstate Defendants incorrectly calculated the initial ACV payment at Step One by deducting depreciation of the anticipated labor cost. The Plaintiffs contend the policy language is ambiguous, by omission, by failing to define ACV specifically to disclose the Allstate Defendants' practice of calculating the initial ACV payment by deducting depreciation of anticipated labor costs. In the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert two causes of action for breach of contract. They assert the first breach of contract claim as a class action, asserting the Allstate Defendants breached the subject insurance policies by failing to pay them and members of the proposed class the ACV of their claims by unlawfully depreciating and withholding anticipated labor costs. The class action breach-of-contract cause of action relates solely to the Allstate Defendants alleged deficient ACV payments to the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class at Step One; Step Two replacement cost reimbursements are not at issue. The Plaintiffs assert the second breach of contract cause of action as individual claims based upon the Allstate Defendants alleged failure to fully and promptly pay the amounts owed under the subject policies. This second, individual breach-of-contract cause of action is not a subject of this Second Motion to Dismiss. Finally, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief stating the applicable insurance contracts prohibit the withholding of anticipated labor costs as depreciation when calculating "actual cash value" of the loss. Essentially, the Plaintiffs seek declaration that the Allstate Defendants wrongfully reduced the initial ACV payments by depreciating anticipated labor costs. The Allstate Defendants previously filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss all causes of action for reasons almost identical to those presented in this Second Motion to Dismiss, which is limited to only the class-action breach of contract and the declaratory judgment causes of action. All parties agreed the previous Amended Motion to Dismiss presented an issue of law and disputed whether the applicable policy provisions of "actual cash value" and "depreciation" are ambiguous. The Court denied the previous Motion to Dismiss, concluding both parties presented reasonable interpretations of these policy terms, and consequently, the Plaintiffs asserted viable causes of action to survive the Motion to Dismiss. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint adding two additional Plaintiff representatives. The Allstate Defendants then filed this Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. As an initial argument, the Plaintiffs argue this successive Motion to Dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) should be dismissed because the Allstate Defendants present the same arguments already presented and addressed by the Court in the previous Amended Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs rely on Federal Rule 12(g)(2) to conclude the Allstate Defendants improperly filed successive motions to dismiss without seeking leave of court. In the present Motion to Dismiss, the Allstate Defendants contend the Plaintiffs expanded their claims and allegations in support of their position in the Second Amended Complaint, thus, the arguments presented were not available previously and leave of Court is not required under Federal Rule 12(g)(2). As an initial matter, again, Judge Pulliam says the Allstate Defendants' argument pertains to the substantive merit of this litigation, not the focus of the Court's determination at this preliminary stage of litigation: whether the Plaintiffs present a viable cause of action. Next, to the extent the argument is relevant, Judge Pulliam finds that the Allstate Defendants propose a strained interpretation of the Plaintiffs "admission." Further, Judge Pulliam opines, the fact that the Allstate Defendants' valuation software, Xactimate(R), allows for or incorporates depreciation of labor costs cannot possibly render the Plaintiffs' policy interpretation unreasonable, nor can this fact be imputed to any insured's understanding of the policy terms or how "depreciation" will be calculated. Thus, Judge Pulliam finds this argument has no merit. The Allstate Defendants compare the language within the policies at issue in Mitchell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 954 F.3d 700 (5th Cir. 2020) with the policies at issue in this case, particularly what the Allstate Defendants label "the Loss Settlement Provision." Judge Pulliam holds that the Allstate Defendants' argument fails, first, because it relies upon evidence consisting of the insurance policy implicated in Mitchell and requires comparison with the policies implicated in this case. The Allstate Defendants attach this policy to their Motion to Dismiss, as well as the Plaintiffs' policies. However, the Court's review cannot go beyond documents referred to in the Second Amended Complaint and central to the Plaintiffs' claims. Consequently, the Court will not address the Allstate Defendants' arguments distinguishing Mitchell. As the Court previously concluded, the Mitchell opinion addresses the identical dispute regarding ambiguity of the terms "actual case value" and "depreciation" and caselaw regarding interpretation of contracts. The Mitchell Court determined the plaintiffs in that case plead enough facts to state a cognizable legal theory. This Court will continue to follow and apply this holding at this stage of litigation. Judge Pulliam notes that the Allstate Defendants present substantive argument pertaining to the merits of this litigation, going beyond the breadth of this Court's analysis of a Federal Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Here, the Court must only determine whether the Plaintiffs plead enough facts to state a cognizable legal theory. The focus is not on the substantive merits of any asserted cause of action. As in Mitchell, the Court finds the Plaintiffs plead enough to state a cognizable legal theory. For the reasons stated in the Court's previous Memorandum Opinion and Order and stated here, the Court concludes there are no relevant distinctions between Mississippi and Texas law on the issue of contract interpretation. The Court concludes there are no relevant distinctions between the policy provisions at issue in this case and the interpretive meaning of the terms "actual cash value" and "depreciation" as used in the Policies. Because the relevant policy provisions, pertinent state-law rules of construction, and arguments presented by the parties are substantially similar to those presented and addressed in Mitchell, the Court finds Mitchell is dispositive of the legal issues presented in both of the Allstate Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The Court finds further that the District Court and Fifth Circuit cases issued after Mitchell do not alter the Fifth Circuit's holding in Mitchell, nor do these cases change the Court's analysis of the legal issues presented by the parties in both of the Allstate Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court finds the Plaintiffs stated plausible causes of action for breach of contract in Count 1 and, thus, for the requested declaratory relief. Consequently, the Allstate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Aug. 21, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrx7jmyz from PacerMonitor.com. AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Middleton Allowed to File 3rd Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JAY MIDDLETON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, on behalf of Amentum 401(k) Retirement Plan, on behalf of DynCorp. International Savings Plan, et al., Plaintiffs v. AMENTUM GOVERNMENT SERVICES PARENT HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02456-EFM-BGS (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Brooks G. Severson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas issued a Memorandum and Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend second amended complaint. The currently operative Complaint is a putative class action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") on behalf of the individually named Plaintiffs, as well as the Amentum Plan, the DynCorp Plan ("the Amentum Plan," the "DynCorp Plan," or collectively "the Plans), and all persons, who were and/or are participants in or beneficiaries of either or both of the Plans. The Plaintiffs bring this case against the Defendants, as fiduciaries of the Plans, for breaches of their fiduciary duties during the Class Period (defined as the six-year period preceding the filing of the original Complaint in this case through the date of judgment). The operative Complaint includes these causes of action: 1) breach of fiduciary duties as to the Dyn Corp Plan; 2) breach of fiduciary duty as to the Amentum Plan; 3) failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries as to the DynCorp Plan; and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries as to the Amentum Plan. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by failing to monitor and control the fees, expenses and costs that each plan incurred and allowed the plans' service providers to charge excessive fees, expenses and costs. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plans cost the Plans and their participants millions of dollars. The Plaintiffs have amended their Complaint twice before. They filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on Jan. 8, 2024, after the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint. This resulted in the District Court finding that Motion to Dismiss to be moot. Then, on April 18, 2024 -- which, according to the Defendants was just days ahead of the Defendants' deadline to file a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint -- the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. Although the Defendants consented to the Plaintiffs' amending their Complaint a second time, the Defendants now complain that doing so mooted the Defendants' nearly complete dispositive motion. The Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint on May 23, 2024, which is currently pending before the District Court. Judge Severson held a status conference on June 11, 2024, during which the Plaintiffs' counsel suggested an intent to move to amend the Complaint. The Court set the deadline to file any such motion to amend or to file an unopposed Third Amended Complaint by June 27, 2024. On June 27, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the present motion to amend, which is the subject of this Order. The Defendants noted that their pending dispositive motion again will be mooted if the Court grants the Motion to Amend. In the present motion to amend, the Plaintiffs seek to add allegations and claims related to the Defendants' breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, among other claims, related to the Plans' use of forfeited funds to reduce each company's respective contributions to the plans. In the Plaintiffs' proposed amended pleading, the breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty causes of action are the fifth and sixth claims alleged (as to the DynCorp Plan and the Amentum Plan, respectively). The Plaintiffs also propose causes of action alleging prohibited transactions against the DynCorp Plain (claim seven) and the Amentum Plan (claim eight), as well as causes of action for breaches of ERISA's anti-inurement provision against the DynCorp Plan (claim nine) and the Amentum Plan (claim ten). Additionally, the Plaintiffs move to amend their existing Counts 1 and 2 (breach of fiduciary duty) and Counts 3 and 4 (failure to monitor) to include allegations relating to forfeiture. They also wish to "clarify" allegations relating to: (1) Plaintiff Middleton's investments in the Amentum Plan, relating to Plaintiff Middleton's standing; (2) Vanguard's right to change eligibility requirements for its share classes, relating to the Plaintiffs' duty-of-prudence claims; and (3) the similarities of the Vanguard Institutional Index Fund and the Fidelity 500 Index Fund, also related to the Plaintiffs' duty-of-prudence claims. The Defendants oppose the motion as unduly delayed, unduly prejudicial, and futile. Judge Severson finds the Defendants' argument unpersuasive. The Court will not penalize the Plaintiffs for choosing not to include in the prior iterations of their Complaint a claim that had yet to be recognized by any federal court in the United States. The fact that other parties in unrelated litigation in federal courts in California chose to include such claims, though interesting, is irrelevant to the Court's determination of the issue of undue delay in the present case. Judge Severson notes that it is undisputed that upon the cause of action being recognized elsewhere, the Plaintiffs promptly moved to amend. The Court finds the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend should not be denied on the grounds of undue delay. The Defendants next assert that the Plaintiffs' delay in waiting to seek to add the proposed new claims—a delay that was not undue—would result in prejudice to them. The Court acknowledges that allowing the Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint will prejudice the Defendants. Again, Judge Severson finds the Defendants' argument unpersuasive. The Court anticipates that the Defendants will not be scrubbing the currently pending dispositive motion in its entirety should the Plaintiffs be allowed to amend their Complaint. Rather, the Defendants will use the majority of that previously-filed motion as a basis for a renewed motion to dismiss. Any new dispositive motion filed by the Defendants will, most likely, simply add discussion relating to the Plaintiffs' proposed additions, Judge Severson points out. As the party opposing the motion to amend, Judge Severson finds that the Defendants have failed to establish that allowing the proposed amendments would be unduly prejudicial to them. The Court finds this is not a basis to deny to deny the Plaintiffs' motion. The Defendants also argue that the proposed pleading is futile because the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the threshold requirement of alleging that the Defendants' conduct violated fiduciary duties. After reviewing the futility arguments raised by the Defendants, the Court finds it will be most expedient and efficient, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, to allow the Plaintiffs to file their proposed Third Amended Class Action Complaint. The Court recognizes the Defendants' opportunity to challenge the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' amended pleading through a dispositive motion if they so choose. Therefore, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ryhnrx6 from PacerMonitor.com. AMERICAN ZURICH: Gross Suit Remanded to Clay County Circuit Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JEREMIAH GROSS, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00399-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Greg Kays of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand, and remands the case back to the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. The case arises from a class action settlement in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. On March 9, 2021, Nicholas Financial, Inc. ("NFI"), commenced a civil action in state court against Plaintiff Jeremiah Gross to recover amounts he owed on an automobile loan. The Plaintiff then filed a class action counterclaim alleging NFI violated Missouri's Uniform Commercial Code. The Defendants, for their part, appear to have issued various insurance policies to NFI but determined the counterclaim's allegations did not trigger any coverage. The parties dispute whether this constitutes a failure to defend or indemnify NFI. After the Plaintiff and NFI entered into a settlement agreement, the Defendants intervened as a matter of right to defend against the claims asserted against NFI. After holding a class action fairness hearing, the state court approved the settlement and entered final judgment on May 15, 2024. In doing so, the state court approved the assignment to the Class of NFI's claims against certain insurers, including any claims of bad faith failure to settle, breach of the duty to defend, breach of the duty to indemnify, and failure to procure adequate insurance, and noted that any recovery against the Defendants will be added to the benefits made available to the Settlement Class. That same day, the Plaintiff filed a pleading against the Defendants titled "Gross's Cross-Claim Against Insurers." The purported cross-claim asserts NFI's assigned claims, including alleged breach of contract, breach of the duty to defend, and bad faith failure to defend or settle. The Defendants timely removed the Plaintiff's cross-claim contending it is a new cause of action removable under the Class Action Fairness Act or the Court's diversity jurisdiction. The Plaintiff moved to remand arguing the Defendants lacked authority to remove because, as intervenors, they were not original defendants to the underlying state court action. Judge Kays notes that it is undisputed that the Defendants were not original defendants to the underlying state court action. Thus, the only question is whether the Plaintiff's cross-claim represents a separate cause of action entitling the Defendants to remove. The Defendants offer two primary arguments supporting removal. First, they argue the underlying action was fully resolved by the state court's final judgment, thus, requiring the Plaintiff to file a separate action if he wished to pursue NFI's assigned claims. Second, the Defendants argue the Plaintiff's cross-claim does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the underlying action, and therefore, by definition, must be a separate action. The Plaintiff disagrees with both arguments, and the Court finds them unpersuasive. First, Judge Kays opines, the state court's final judgment--which incorporated the final approval order--contemplates that additional pleadings will be filed in the underlying action in connection with NFI's assigned claims. Further, the final judgment reserved the issue of damages for a later date. As such, it is not clear the final judgment resolves all issues and forecloses the Plaintiff from asserting NFI's assigned claims in the underlying action. But to the extent that it does, Judge Kays points out, the state court can clarify the scope of its final judgment upon remand. Second, although the Plaintiff's claim is styled as a cross-claim, it is more akin to a counterclaim because the Plaintiff and the Defendants are opposing parties in the underlying action not co-parties. As such, the Court cannot find that the Plaintiff's cross-claim must be a separate cause of action. But again, to the extent that it is, the state court can address the issue upon remand. Finally, Judge Kays opines, the Plaintiff requests attorneys' fees. In determining whether the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal, the Court does not consider the removing defendant's motive, but instead considers the objective merits of removal at the time of removal, irrespective of the ultimate remand. Here, Judge Kays finds that the Defendants lacked a reasonable basis to remove. Judge Kays explains that the state court's final judgment did not resolve all issues in the underlying action. Rather, it granted the Plaintiff leave to file additional pleadings in connection with NFI's assigned claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees is granted. For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The case is remanded back to the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. The Court retains limited jurisdiction to determine a reasonable amount of attorneys' fees. Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer, within fourteen (14) days of this Order, to determine a reasonable amount of attorneys' fees. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, the Plaintiff will submit a bill of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, supported by the appropriate documentation. The Defendants' response will be due on or before Sept. 18, 2024. The Plaintiff's reply, if any, will be due on or before Sept. 25, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/msfmwcff from PacerMonitor.com. ANALOG DEVICES: Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Analog Devices, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended August 3, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2024, that on May 2, 2023, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered an order dismissing C.A. No. 2022—0255 in its entirety and with prejudice. On May 9, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Re-argument, which the court denied on May 30, 2023. On June 21, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. On February 26, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an order affirming the dismissal of the action. On March 17, 2022, Walter E. Ryan and Ryan Asset Management, LLC, purported stockholders of Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., filed a putative class action in the Court of Chancery against the company and the former directors of Maxim. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants in connection with Maxim's agreement, as part of the merger negotiations with the company, to suspend Maxim dividends for up to four quarters prior to the closing of the Company's acquisition of Maxim. The complaint further alleges that the company aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plaintiffs’ costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees, costs and other expenses. Analog Devices, Inc. is into semiconductors and other related devices based in Massachusetts. ANGARA INC: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Kalari Jackson Girtley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ANGARA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07955 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons. Because the Defendant's website, www.angara.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.angara.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com ANYWHERE ADVISORS: Rotschild Amended Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida adopted United States Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek's Report and Recommendation and dismissed the case captioned as MAYER AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANYWHERE ADVISORS LLC and ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-304-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla.) without prejudice. Rothschild has not objected to the R&R. After a careful and independent review of the parties' papers, record, and applicable law, the Court adopts Judge Dudek's R&R and dismisses the case. Though Rothschild has not objected to the R&R, he filed an amended complaint during the objections period. But Rothschild's late filing of an amended complaint does not alter the analysis. Rothschild was directed to file an amended complaint by May 12, 2024, because his original complaint was a shotgun pleading that contained improper class action allegations. He requested an extension and thereafter was directed to file an amended complaint by June 11, 2024. Rothschild requested a second extension of time, which the Court also granted. This gave Rothschild until July 18, 2024, to file an amended complaint. The Court warned Rothschild that "no further extensions will be granted" and that failure to file an amended complaint by July 18, 2024, "will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed." Judge Dudek recommended that the case be dismissed when Rothschild failed to file an amended complaint by the July 18, 2024, deadline. This chain of events clearly shows what Judge Dudek observed—Rothschild's lack of diligent prosecution. But Judge Dudek's R&R, lacking clairvoyance, did not discuss Rothschild's amended complaint. Rothschild did not file his amended complaint until nearly two weeks after the R&R was issued. This amended complaint is due for dismissal for both its tardiness and its disregard of Judge Dudek's directives. The amended complaint was filed 19 days after it was due, which both violates Judge Dudek's order and shows a failure to prosecute. And the amended complaint also disregarded Judge Dudek's order to fix the original complaint's shotgun pleading problems and remove class action allegations. According to the Court, the amended complaint is still a shotgun pleading and still contains class action allegations. Judge Chappell directed the Clerk to terminate any deadlines and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated August 12, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jet1BT ARKANSAS: Summary Judgment Granted in Farella v. Public Defenders ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit styled ABIGAIL FARELLA; LOGAN W. MURPHY; and All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFFS v. DISTRICT JUDGE A.J. ANGLIN; GREGG PARRISH; and JAY SAXTON, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 5:22-cv-05121-TLB (W.D. Ark.). The questions presented in this case are whether indigent criminal defendants have a constitutional right to attorney representation during the judicial officer's determination of bail, and if so, whether the Defendants violated that right by failing to timely appoint counsel before the Plaintiffs' bail was set. The Defendants are Executive Director of the Arkansas Public Defender Commission Gregg Parrish and Chief Benton County Public Defender Jay Saxton (together, the "Public Defenders") and Benton County District Judge A.J. Anglin, all of whom are sued in their official capacities. The matter arises from a bail hearing procedure in Judge Anglin's court that the Plaintiffs allege is constitutionally defective. The Plaintiffs are Abigail Farella and Logan W. Murphy, who represent a certified class of (1) pretrial detainees, (2) who have or will appear before District Judge A.J. Anglin, (3) for a bail or pretrial release hearing under Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure 8–9, (4) who are indigent, and (5) do not have appointed (public defender) representation at that hearing. Presently before the Court are Cross-motions for Summary Judgment from the Plaintiffs and Judge Anglin. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to find as a matter of law that indigent persons have a right to have appointed counsel present at bail hearings under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that Judge Anglin's bail hearing procedure violates that right. They seek a declaratory judgment to that effect and a permanent injunction requiring that indigent persons must have appointed counsel present at bail hearings in Judge Anglin's court. Judge Anglin's Motion asks the Court to find the opposite--that the Plaintiffs do not have a right to counsel at bail hearings under the Sixth Amendment and that Judge Anglin did not violate the Plaintiffs' Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment rights--and that his decision setting the Plaintiffs' bonds is entitled to judicial immunity. Accordingly, Judge Anglin argues that he should be dismissed from this lawsuit. The Public Defenders filed a separate Response to the Plaintiffs' Motion. They take no position on the Plaintiffs' request for declaratory judgment; however, they oppose the permanent injunction. They argue that the requested injunction would impose significant strain on the provision of public defense services such that the public defender's ability to provide constitutionally effective representation would be seriously compromised, if not impossible. On May 20, 2022, Bentonville Police Department ("BPD") officers arrested Abigail Farella for felony possession of a controlled substance, misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, and misdemeanor shoplifting. She was transported to the Benton County Jail and--after waiting for more than ten hours--booked. That was Friday. On the following Sunday, May 22, Ms. Farella appeared before Judge Anglin. The hearing was held in a small courtroom in the jail. Ms. Farella was one of several defendants to appear that day. She was not represented by an attorney. After reviewing these materials, Judge Anglin conducted Ms. Farella's hearing. He read her charges and, after considering her criminal history and lack of ties to the state of Arkansas (Ms. Farella was a Missouri resident), set her bond at $10,000 cash or corporate surety. Then Judge Anglin scheduled her arraignment, Ms. Farella's next court date, for June 27, 2022. After bail was set and the arraignment scheduled, Judge Anglin found her indigent and appointed a public defender to represent her in subsequent proceedings. Then he concluded the hearing. Ms. Farella remained incarcerated in the Benton County Jail for more than five weeks following her arrest, until June 27, when Arkansas Circuit Court Judge Brad Karren entered a diversion order in her case. Judge Karren also entered an order vacating Ms. Farella's $10,000 bond and stating that counsel for Defendant and Deputy Prosecutor Sharon Nowlin have agreed that a written promise to appear for future court dates is sufficient to assure the Defendant's appearance. Ms. Farella pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor theft of property charge on July 25, 2023. Bentonville Police arrested Logan Murphy for felony fleeing and misdemeanor reckless driving on June 20, 2022. He was taken to the Benton County Jail, booked, and held overnight. The next morning, June 21, Mr. Murphy appeared for his hearing before Judge Anglin. As in Ms. Farella's case, prior to Mr. Murphy's hearing, Judge Anglin had been provided with a sworn Affidavit of Probable Cause by the BPD. It included the charges against him, a recitation of his criminal history, and an arrest report. After their initial colloquy, Judge Anglin set Mr. Murphy's bail at $40,000 cash or corporate surety. Judge Anglin then set Mr. Murphy's arraignment for July 25, 2022, found him indigent, and appointed a public defender to represent him at future proceedings. It appears that he remained in jail until July 22, 2022, when he posted bail. Mr. Murphy pleaded guilty to felony fleeing on June 12, 2023. He was sentenced to 60 months of probation. Ms. Farella and Mr. Murphy filed their Complaint in this matter on June 24, 2022, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals. They brought denial of right-to-counsel claims under the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. They pleaded the case as a class action. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on Nov. 15, 2022. Judge Anglin and the Public Defenders each filed Motions to Dismiss on Dec. 13, 2022, and Feb. 10, 2023, invoking the doctrines of sovereign immunity and abstention and also alleging that the Amended Complaint failed to state a claim and omitted indispensable parties. On Aug. 5, 2023, the Court denied the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and on Aug. 21, Judge Anglin and the Public Defenders filed Answers to the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify Class on Nov. 20, 2023, which the Court granted on May 7, 2024. They appear at summary judgment representing the certified class. The threshold question presented is whether the Plaintiffs have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at Judge Anglin's bail determination. The Court finds in the affirmative. Judge Brooks opines that the undisputed facts show that the Plaintiffs' Sixth Amendment right attaches at their Rule 8.1 Hearings, that Judge Anglin's bail determination is a critical stage of their criminal proceedings, and that the Plaintiffs' Sixth Amendment right was, therefore, violated when no counsel was appointed before their bail was determined. Accordingly, the Court rules that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to their Sixth Amendment Claim and request for declaratory judgment, and Judge Anglin's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as to the same. In addition to a declaratory judgment, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a permanent injunction ordering that indigent defendants must have appointed counsel present at bail hearings before Judge Anglin. The Court considers the injunction under the following legal standard: "A permanent injunction requires the moving party to show actual success on the merits." If actual success is found, Judge Brooks says courts must then consider three factors to determine whether a permanent injunction is warranted: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; (2) the balance of harms with any injury an injunction might inflict on other parties; and (3) the public interest, citing Miller v. Thurston, 967 F.3d 727, 735–36 (8th Cir. 2020), and Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir.1981). Taken together, the Court finds that the Dataphase factors show that a permanent injunction is warranted. The Plaintiffs have shown success on the merits, and the other Dataphase factors clearly weigh in their favor. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is, thus, granted as to their prayer for injunctive relief. Therefore, the Court orders that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Defendant Anglin's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The Court further orders that the Plaintiffs' prayer for declaratory relief is granted as to Count I. The Defendants and their respective officers, agents, and attorneys are immediately enjoined: they must ensure that indigent defendants are represented by appointed counsel at Judge Anglin's Rule 8.1 Hearings when he determines bail. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Aug. 21, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3szx5d from PacerMonitor.com. AVI FOOD SYSTEMS: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Bianca Castillo, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. AVI FOOD SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-06591 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2024), is brought under the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR") as a result of unpaid overtime wages. Specifically, throughout her employment, Defendant routinely required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty hours each workweek, or virtually each workweek. Yet in exchange, for most weeks, Defendant paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis for only some of the first forty hours that she worked during the week, and paid her nothing for the hours that she worked over forty in a week. Thus, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff at the statutorily-required rate of one and one-half times her regular rate for all of the hours that Plaintiff worked over forty in a week, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, or all of her earned wages under the NYLL, which also constitutes an unlawful deduction from her wages. Moreover, when dividing Plaintiff's total weekly pay received by her total hours worked, Plaintiff's effective rate of pay fell below the minimum wage rate that the NYLL requires for each hour of work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a cashier, grill worker, and food preparer, in New York. The Defendant is an Ohio corporation that operates cafeterias in educational institutions, hospitals, and businesses throughout the United State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sharan R. Abraham, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 BCE-MACH III: Must Produce Acquisition Agreement in Sagacity Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as SAGACITY, INC., AND BOLLENBACH ENTERPRISES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BCE-MACH III LLC, Defendants, Case No. Case No. 23-cv-0039-JFH-GL (E.D. Okla.), Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Jackson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel regarding certain documents. On April 3, 2023, Judge Heil referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all pretrial and discovery matters, including dispositive motions, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Plaintiff filed this putative class action on behalf of royalty owners of certain wells in Oklahoma against Defendant for the underpayment of royalties. On May 10, 2023, Defendant filed its Initial Disclosures in which it identified certain documents it might use to support its claims or defenses including, inter alia, "Redacted Asset Acquisition or Purchase Agreements (highly confidential)[.]" Additionally, in its Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Written Discovery, Defendant agreed to produced "redacted responsive documents demonstrating BCE-Mach III's acquisition of Oklahoma leases." Although Defendant objected to Request No. 1 as "overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant," it offered no explanation or further information supporting its objection. In April 2024, Defendant indicated to Plaintiff that the documents responsive to Request for Production No. 1 were being gathered, but only one asset acquisition or purchase agreement out of ten was produced and it was produced in a heavily redacted form. Subsequently, Defendant represented to Plaintiff that it would not produce any of the acquisition documents beyond the one heavily redacted agreement. To date, Defendant has not amended or supplemented its initial disclosures or responses to Plaintiff's first discovery requests. Plaintiff filed the Motion to Compel, arguing that the acquisition agreement and the attached schedules contain relevant information, including information, among other things, likely tying the contracts to various leases and wells. Defendant responds that the acquisition agreements are not relevant and, other than possibly one or more of the attached schedules, do not contain any relevant information. Defendant further states that it "withdraws from its initial disclosure" the acquisition agreements. A hearing on the motion was held on August 12, 2024. Judge Jackson says, "After considering the pleadings and argument of counsel at the August 12, 2024 hearing, it is apparent that Defendant listed the acquisition agreements as relevant documents in its initial disclosures and stated it would produce such documents in response to Document Request No. 1. Defendant has neither amended nor supplemented its initial disclosures or discovery responses. Whatever it intended with its 'withdraw' in its Response, it is ineffective as an amendment to its initial disclosures and discovery responses. Therefore, by its own admission, Defendant concedes that at least some portion of the acquisition agreements or schedules attached thereto are or may be relevant in this matter. As such, the responsive acquisition agreements are to be produced unredacted. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 12, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qjs9oC BE VITAMINS HEALTH: Vega Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Norberto Vega, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BE VITAMINS HEALTH FOOD STORE INCORPORATED, Case No. 2:24-cv-08884 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.bevitaminsusa.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates its Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BETTER EARTH: Court Dismisses Claims Against BEI in Quesada Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MERCEDES QUESADA, Plaintiff v. BETTER EARTH, INC. and BETTER EARTH ELECTRIC FL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01809-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.), Judge Julie S. Sneed of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against BEI. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The Plaintiff opposes the Motion. Upon consideration, the Court holds that the Defendants' Motion is granted in part, and the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Better Earth, Inc., are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff Mercedes Quesada brings this proposed class action seeking damages in excess of $5 million on behalf of herself and all persons, who incurred similar or identical losses related to the Defendants' allegedly wrongful conduct. According to the Plaintiff's Complaint, she, along with numerous putative Class Members, suffered quantifiable financial harm as a result of the Defendants' breach of contract. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to install operable solar energy systems within the timeframe specified in the parties' contract. The Defendants are Better Earth, Inc. (BEI), a California corporation with its principal place of business in California, and BEI's wholly owned subsidiary Better Earth Electric FL, LLC (BEF), a Florida Limited Liability Company. The Plaintiff brought her original Class Action Complaint against the Defendants on Sept. 19, 2023. On Oct. 13, 2023, she filed her First Amended Class Action Complaint. On Jan. 19, 2024, she filed the operative Second Amended Class Action Complaint. All three complaints assert the same counts against the same Defendants: one count for breach of contract (Count I) and one count for unjust enrichment (Count II). The Defendants filed their Motion arguing that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim and does not establish personal jurisdiction over BEI. The Plaintiff opposes the Motion and argues that she has sufficiently stated a claim and has established jurisdiction. Judge Sneed finds that general jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. section 48.193(2) is not proper as against BEI in this case, and that jurisdiction does not lie against BEI pursuant to Fla. Stat. section 48.193(1)(a)(1). Because the Plaintiff does not establish personal jurisdiction over BEI, the Court grants the Motion in part and dismisses the claims against BEI without prejudice. The Defendants also raise three grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). First, the Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading. Second, BEI should be dismissed as a non-party to the contract underlying the Plaintiff's claims. Third, the Complaint fails to allege fraud with particularity. The Plaintiff's Complaint does not fail to give the Defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests, and, thus, dismissal under Rule 8 is denied, Judge Sneed holds. Given that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that BEI was a signatory to the contract, BEI may only be held liable for breach of the contract if the corporate veil separating BEI and BEF can be pierced under the theory that BEF is merely the alter ego of BEI, Judge Sneed says. Even if the Plaintiff had provided sufficient indicia of control by BEI over BEF, Judge Sneed finds she has failed to establish the second element required to impose alter ego liability--that the corporate form was used for an improper purpose. For these reasons, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the corporate veil should be pierced and liability imposed against BEI for BEF's alleged breach of contract. The Court notes, however, that neither the Motion, nor the Plaintiff's response, analyzes the unjust enrichment claims as distinct from the breach of contract claims. Judge Sneed also finds, among other things, that there is no requirement that the Plaintiff plead fraud in order to adequately allege either breach of contract or unjust enrichment under Florida law. The Plaintiff was not required to plead any of her claims with particularity, and thus, dismissal under Rule 9 is not warranted. Accordingly, the Court rules that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff's request for the Court to take judicial notice is granted. The Plaintiff's request to seek jurisdictional discovery is denied. The Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Better Earth, Inc. in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint are dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff may file a third amended complaint that sets forth facts to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant Better Earth, Inc., on or before Sept. 20, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 21, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4bzre5cf from PacerMonitor.com. BG RETAIL: Carr Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Mary Carr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BG Retail, LLC and Caleres, Inc., Case No. 24-2060 (Mass. Commonwealth, Aug. 5, 2024), is brought against Defendants to recover damages and restitution under the Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Massachusetts Consumer Privacy in Commercial Transactions Act ("CPICTA"). The CPICTA prohibits companies such as the Defendants from requiring consumers to providing their information (e.g., address, telephone number) when making a credit card transaction, unless such information is necessary for the transaction (e.g., shipping or delivery). Nonetheless, and in contravention of the CPICTA, the Defendants requires each of its online shoppers paying by credit card and checking out via its website's credit card transaction form to write personal identification information not required by credit card issuers their email address. The Defendants then uses the collected email addresses to send unwanted commercial solicitations—namely, spam marketing emails ("Spam")--to said consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a pair of boots from Famous Footwear. The Defendant is one of the largest footwear companies in the nation, and it operates Famous Footwear retail locations throughout the Commonwealth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEV, p.c. 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 377-7404 Email: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jarisohn@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: DeFelippis Sues Over Deceptive Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony DeFelippis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bloomingdale's Inc. and Bloomingdales.com LLC, Case No. 24-2059 (Mass. Commonwealth, Aug. 5, 2024), is brought against Defendants to recover damages and restitution under the Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Massachusetts Consumer Privacy in Commercial Transactions Act ("CPICTA"). The CPICTA prohibits companies such as the Defendants from requiring consumers to providing their information (e.g., address, telephone number) when making a credit card transaction, unless such information is necessary for the transaction (e.g., shipping or delivery). Nonetheless, and in contravention of the CPICTA, the Defendants requires each of its online shoppers paying by credit card and checking out via its website's credit card transaction form to write personal identification information not required by credit card issuers their email address. The Defendants then uses the collected email addresses to send unwanted commercial solicitations--namely, spam marketing emails ("Spam")--to said consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a pair of boots from Famous Footwear. The Defendant is one of the largest department store chains in the nation, it operates retail locations throughout the Commonwealth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEV, p.c. 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 377-7404 Email: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jarisohn@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com BLUEMERCURY INC: Claude Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Wislande Claude, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BLUEMERCURY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-08879 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.bluemercury.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates its Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES: Carlson Files Suit in D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BMW Financial Services NA, LLC. The case is styled as Joshua Carlson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-03193-JWB-TNL (D. Minn., Aug. 9, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. BMW Financial Services -- https://www.bmwusa.com/ -- offers an unparalleled experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua W. Carlson, Esq. CARLSONFIRM 200 Southdale Center Edina, MN 55435 Phone: (612) 961-3748 Email: joshua.carlson@thecarlsonfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Alexandra Christensen, Esq. Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS 633 West 5th St., Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 358-6073 Email: alexandra.christensen@lewisbrisbois.com eric.kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Emily Suhr, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 90 South 7th Street, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 428-5000 Fax: (612) 428-5001 Email: emily.suhr@lewisbrisbois.com BOIRON INC: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Fagnani Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MYKAYKLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOIRON, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06688 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://boironusa.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek 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 individuals. Boiron, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BONOBOS INC: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Howard Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BONOBOS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07957 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons. Because the Defendant's website, www.bonobos.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.bonobos.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com BRINKER INT'L: SC Denies Petition for Certiorari in Payment Row --------------------------------------------------------------- Brinker International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended June 26, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2024, that on September 15, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the company's August 15, 2023 petition for Panel or En Banc Rehearing seeking further review by said court of the panel's July 11, 2023, decision vacating in part the district court's class certification order. On April 29, 2024, the US Supreme Court denied its petition for certiorari concerning review of the Eleventh Circuit's decision to uphold plaintiff's damages calculation. In 2018, the company discovered malware at certain Chili's restaurants that may have resulted in unauthorized access or acquisition of customer payment card data. The company settled all claims from payment card companies related to this incident and do not expect material claims from payment card companies in the future. In connection with this event, the company was also named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida relating to this incident. In the Litigation, plaintiffs assert various claims at the company's Chili's restaurants involving customer payment card information and seek monetary damages in excess of $5.0 million, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorney's fees and costs. Brinker International, Inc. is engaged in the ownership, operation, development, and franchising of the Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant brands, as well as virtual brands including It's Just Wings and Maggiano's Italian Classics. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Doherty Sues Over Prohibited Transactions --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES DOHERTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO., BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY PENSION COMMITTEE, and STATE STREET GLOBAL ADVISORS TRUST CO., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06628 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary and co-fiduciary duties, knowing participation in a fiduciary breach related to an insurance annuity, and prohibited transaction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The case arises from Bristol-Myers' decision to purchase group annuity contracts from Athene Annuity and Life Company and Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company of New York under which Bristol-Myers paid Athene in exchange for Athene assuming the obligation to pay the Bristol-Myers Squibb Retirement Income Plan's participants and beneficiaries their retirement benefits through an insurance policy outside of ERISA's protective regime. In doing so, Bristol-Myers removed those Plan participants and former employees from the Plan, placed their retirement benefits beyond ERISA's protections, and terminated the Plan. The Plan participants and beneficiaries whom Bristol-Myers unloaded to Athene bear all of the transaction's risk while enjoying none of the profits that Bristol-Myers reaped through its purchase of a much less expensive, but far riskier, annuity than was available and that Bristol-Myers could have purchased, says the suit. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. is a multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in New York, New York. State Street Global Advisors Trust Co. is an investment management firm headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Stone, Esq. Lisa A. Salmons, Esq. EDWARD STONE LAW P.C. 575 Lexington Ave., 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 933-3143 Facsimile: (203) 348-8477 Email: eddie@edwardstonelaw.com - and - Cyril V. Smith, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 E. Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 949-1145 Facsimile: (410) 659-0436 Email: csmith@zuckerman.com - and - Bryan M. Reines, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M Street N.W., Suite 10000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 778-1846 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 Email: breines@zuckerman.com - and - Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq. Susan L. Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff St. Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6272 Email: ehopkins@kantorlaw.net smeter@kantorlaw.net CALIBRATED HEALTHCARE: Adams Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Calibrated Healthcare Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Brandi Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Calibrated Healthcare Systems, LLC, Calibrated Healthcare, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01754-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Calibrated Healthcare Network (CHN) -- https://calibratedhealthcare.com/ -- is a healthcare administration service provider based in Los Angeles, California, with offshore delivery center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. Michael Willard Olson, Esq. Wesley K Polischuk, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 720-1288 Fax: (949) 720-1292 Email: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com molson@robinsonfirm.com wpolischuk@robinsonfirm.com - and - Jeremiah L Frei-Paerson, Esq. Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON AND GARBER, LLP One North Broadway Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 298-3271 Fax: (914) 298-3281 Email: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com tgarber@fbfglaw.com - and - Michael Akira Kushner, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 966-8812 Email: mkushner@bakerlaw.com CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT: Sutton Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Adam Andru Sutton, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV17682 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 on Aug. 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07407. The Complaint asserts 10 causes of action for: Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Provide Timely Off duty Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Maintain Records and Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Wages Due Upon Termination; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Provide Uniform Maintenance Allowance; Reporting Time Pay; Failure to Allow Inspection of Employment Records; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Leo Q. Li, Esq. David J. Kim, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: lli@seyfarth.com dakim@seyfarth.com - and - Heriberto Alvarez, Jr., Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 213-9601 Email: halvarez@seyfarth.com CHARMING CHARLIE: Mackey Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ Hunter Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHARMING CHARLIE, LLC, Case No. CACE-24-011091 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Aug. 5, 2024), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). 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. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that 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 ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Charming Charlie ("Charming Charlie Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. The Defendant 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 LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com CHILDREN’S PLACE: Beckford Sues Over Fake-Discount Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- Aja Beckford, Zachary Cubas, Christina Labajo, and Alexus Wallace, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE CHILDREN’S PLACE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 24CV086768 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug. 9, 2024), is brought for violations of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act due to fake-discount scheme. The Defendant has imposed an unconscionable and illegal dispute resolution process on consumers--one that allows the retailer to unilaterally determine ex post which claims to resolve in court and which claims to resolve in confidential arbitration. As a result, consumers who wish to bring claims against Children’s Place have been forced to waste their time, effort, and money getting whipsawed back and forth between court and arbitration. Meanwhile, Children’s Place continues to get away with its fake discount scheme. A real discount is a short-term reduction in price from the normal price of the product. Children’s Place tells its customers that they are getting discounts on its products, but Children’s Place does not offer a real discount. Instead, it perpetually offers its products at the supposedly “discounted” prices, meaning that those “discounted” prices are just the normal prices. Not knowing this deception, however, consumers buy Children’s Place’s products under the misled belief that they are buying at a real discount, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are consumers of the Defendant. Children’s Place is a large national retailer of mostly children’s clothes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Warren D. Postman, Esq. Kiran N. Bhat, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 312.741.5220 Email wdp@kellerpostman.com kiran.bhat@kellerpostman.com - and - Ethan H. Ames, Esq. 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.741.5220 Email ethan.ames@kellerpostman.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. James B. Drimmer, Esq. Matthew J. Zevin, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1234 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Phone: 619.762.1910 Email todd@lcllp.com jim@lcllp.com mattz@lcllp.com CINEMARK USA: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Eslimerari Ramos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CINEMARK USA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07963 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons. Because the Defendant's website, www.cinemark.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.cinemark.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com CLUB PILATES: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Bunting Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ RASHETA BUNTING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLUB PILATES FRANCHISE, LLC and XPONENTIAL FITNESS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06129 (E.D.N.Y., September 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. Club Pilates Franchise, LLC is a company that franchises fitness brands, doing business in New York. Xponential Fitness, Inc. is a fitness franchise group of boutique fitness brands headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com COMMUNICATION FEDERAL: Hall Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Charlotte Hall, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COMMUNICATION FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 5:24-cv-00902-J (W.D. Okla., Aug. 29, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendant collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) customers at Defendant. The The PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, dates of birth, contact information, driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers, and financial information ("personally identifiable information" or "PII"). The PII compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers at Defendant. The Defendant is a federal credit union that operates branch locations in Oklahoma and Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com CONAGRA FOODS: Ruiz Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Margarita Ruiz, an individual, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS, LLC; a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CV-24-005877 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Stanislaus, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-at-00685. On July 24, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a civil complaint against Defendant which sets forth the following causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; violation of Labor Code; unfair competition (the "Complaint").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com zach@tomorrowlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Weissler, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Ste 1500 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 480-1926 Facsimile: (314) 480-1505 Email: AJ.Weissler@huschblackwell.com CONSOLIDATED COMMUNITY: Joseph Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROLD JOSEPH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSOLIDATED COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-012607 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., September 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Florida's Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA). The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending communications to consumers, including the Plaintiff, in connection with collecting a debt between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the debtor's time zone without prior consent in violation of FCCPA. Consolidated Community Management Inc. is a property management company in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com CONSUMER CELLULAR: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CONSUMER CELLULAR INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:24-cv-05729 (E.D. Wis., Sept. 2, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons. Because the Defendant's website, www.consumercellular.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.consumercellular.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com CONSUMER SAFETY: Bid for Arbitration Granted; Mallory Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge J. Ronnie Greer of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville Division, grants the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit styled MAX MALLORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSUMER SAFETY TECHNOLOGY, LLC d/b/a INTOXALOCK, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00436-JRG-DCP (E.D. Tenn.). The matter is before the Court on Defendant Consumer Safety Technology, LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss the Amended Complaint or in the Alternative to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of Arbitration, Consumer Safety Technology's Memorandum in Support, Plaintiff Max Mallory's Response, and Consumer Safety Technology's Reply. After pleading guilty to drunk driving in 2019, Plaintiff Max Mallory sought the reinstatement of his driver's license, and the State of Tennessee informed him that, to regain his driving privileges, he had to obtain an ignition interlock device and drive on a restricted license for two years. According to Mr. Mallory, the ignition interlock device is installed in a person's vehicle, and through breath samples, it analyzes the driver's blood-alcohol concentration and prevents the vehicle from starting if the driver's blood-alcohol concentration is outside the legal limit. Mr. Mallory contracted with the Defendant to lease an ignition interlock device, and over roughly two years, he entered into eight lease agreements with the Defendant, with those lease agreements ranging in duration from one month to six months. The eighth lease--unlike any of the previous seven leases--contains an arbitration provision. Both parties agree that Mr. Mallory did not opt out of the arbitration provision. Shortly before the eighth lease agreement's expiration in April 2022, the State reinstated Mr. Mallory's driver's license and authorized the removal of the ignition interlock device from his vehicle. He, then, filed this class-action lawsuit in this Court against the Defendant claiming that it misrepresented the costs associated with its ignition interlock device, that it breached the leases and violated state law by overcharging him and levying excessive fees, and that its ignition interlock device damaged his vehicle's battery and required him to purchase at least five new batteries over the leases' durations. He brings various state-law claims against Consumer Safety Technology, including claims for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment--all of which he packages into a class-action lawsuit under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). In response to Mr. Mallory's lawsuit, Consumer Safety Technology petitions the Court to compel Mr. Mallory to pursue his claims in individual arbitration, invoking the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). Mr. Mallory opposes the motion. As an initial matter, Mr. Mallory concedes that the arbitration agreement is valid, acknowledging that for the abbreviated lease period in the eighth lease agreement, he would be required to submit any claims that might arise to an arbitrator. In other words, he concedes that the arbitration agreement forecloses his claims under the eighth lease agreement but not the previous seven lease agreements. As the party seeking to compel arbitration, Judge Greer says Consumer Safety Technology's stance is broader than Mr. Mallory's; it argues that Mr. Mallory has agreed to arbitrate all his disputes in his amended complaint. To support this argument, the Defendant directs the Court to the language in paragraph 18.4 of the arbitration agreement, which states that the arbitration will take place in the state and county in which the lessee resides. The AAA's consumer arbitration rules will apply. Consumer Safety Technology characterizes this language as a delegation provision. Mr. Mallory does not appear to dispute that this language constitutes a delegation provision, but he does contest its validity. The presence of this delegation provision is significant, Judge Greer notes. Having agreed in paragraph 18.4 that the AAA's consumer arbitration rules will apply, Judge Greer finds that the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator, not the Court. In the absence of any appreciable arguments against the formation of the arbitration agreement containing the delegation provision, the Court can only conclude that Mr. Mallory's arguments resonate as challenges to its enforceability or validity, and even a cursory review of his challenges fortifies the Court's conclusion. As for Mr. Mallory's last-standing argument--i.e., his argument that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable--it cannot avail him either, Judge Greer holds. Mr. Mallory does not attack the delegation provision on grounds separate from those that he uses to attack the broader arbitration agreement, and his failure to do so scuttles his claim of unconscionability, Judge Greer points out. Because Mr. Mallory does not specifically attack the delegation provision or successfully challenge the formation of the arbitration agreement containing the delegation provision, the Court will honor the parties' decision to consign the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator. The parties' arbitration agreement contains a delegation provision, and the record, by clear and unmistakable evidence, establishes that the parties agreed in that delegation provision to reserve the question of arbitrability for an arbitrator, not the Court. As the party opposing arbitration, Judge Greer finds that Mr. Mallory does not a muster a specific challenge to the delegation provision, and he does not demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he and Consumer Safety Technology agreed to, or formed, the arbitration agreement containing the delegation provision. The Court, therefore, orders as follows. Consumer Safety Technology's Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. Mr. Mallory is compelled to submit his claims to arbitration, according to the terms of the parties' arbitration agreement in the eighth lease agreement. The action is stayed as to all claims and matters at issue between the parties. The parties are ordered to file a status report with the Court within 120 days of this Order's date and every 120 days thereafter. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Aug. 21, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvbwyy77 from PacerMonitor.com. DIAMONDS DIRECT: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Kalari Jackson Girtley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DIAMONDS DIRECT USA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07954 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons. Because the Defendant's website, www.diamondsdirect.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.diamondsdirect.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com ELITE ONE: Underpays Security Guards, Wesley Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JACKALLISA WESLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELITE ONE PROTECTION SERVICES, LLC and JUAN C. SETTLES, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02620 (W.D. Tenn., September 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit under Tennessee common law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a security guard. Elite One Protection Services, LLC, is a security services provider, headquartered in Collierville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com jbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New York Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2024, that it is facing a consolidated amended class action complaint, which alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements during the period February 3, 2022 to October 31, 2023 in press releases, the company's public filings and during conference calls with analysts that artificially inflated the price of the company's stock in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On January 22, 2024, the company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were initially named as defendants in a securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements during the period February 3, 2022 to October 31, 2023 in press releases, the company's public filings and during conference calls with analysts that artificially inflated the price of the company's stock. It alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel are due on February 5, 2024. On March 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended class action complaint, which alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements during the period February 3, 2022 to October 31, 2023. The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. is a worldwide manufacturer, marketer and seller of skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care products. ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit Over Disclosures ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2024, that it is facing a consolidated amended class action complaint, which alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements during the period February 3, 2022 to October 31, 2023. On December 7, 2023 the company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were initially named as defendants in a securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 20, 2024, this was consolidated with another action. The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements during the period August 18, 2022 to May 2, 2023 in press releases, the company's public filings and during conference calls with analysts that artificially inflated the price of the company's stock. It alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel are due on February 5, 2024. On March 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended class action complaint, which alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements during the period February 3, 2022 to October 31, 2023 in press releases, the company's public filings and during conference calls with analysts that artificially inflated the price of the company's stock in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. is a worldwide manufacturer, marketer and seller of skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care products. FAMILY DOLLAR: Berkley Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Dana Berkley, Nina Pallman, Etoya Garrett, Margarite Sampson, Alecia Bowens, Terrance Montgomery, Sandy Selesky, Casandra Maynard, Shakia Means, Farah Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Dollar Tree Inc., Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Family Dollar, Inc., Family Dollar Services, LLC, Family Dollar LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00271 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 29, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-61599-AHS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American variety store chain.[BN] FANEUIL INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Elizabeth Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. FANEUIL, INC.; TTEC GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC; TTEC HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV10618 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07445. The Complaint sets forth the following seven causes of action: violation of California Labor Code section 1194 (Unpaid Minimum Wages); violation of California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime); violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods); violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 (Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods); violation of California Labor Code section 204 and 210 (Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment); violation of California Labor Code section 226 (Non-Compliant Wage Statements); violation of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203 (Untimely Final Wages); violation of California Labor Code section 2802 (Unreimbursed Business Expenses); and violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (Unlawful Business Practices).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara DuVan-Clarke, Esq. Alexander K. Spellman, Esq. P.J. Van Ert, Esq. Annabel F. Blanchard, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 Email: BDC@blackstonepc.com aspellman@blackstonepc.com pjvanert@blackstonepc.com ablanchard@blackstonepc.com gibarra@blackstonepc.com aamato@blackstonepc.com nsandres@blackstonepc.com The Defendants are represented by: Jasmine L. Anderson, Esq. Jonathan C. Pearce, Esq. Lance Schimke, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 345 California Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94104-2670 Phone: 415.364.5540 Facsimile: 415.391.4436 Email: JLAnderson@FoxRothschild.com JCPearce@FoxRothschild.com LSchimke@FoxRothschild.com FEVID TRANSPORT: Dees Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Chester Dees, Marcus Hubbard, Wanda June Kirkpatrick, and Jimmy Santana, and all others similarly situated v. FEVID TRANSPORT, LLC AND SAND REVOLUTION II, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00873-JFR-KK (D.N.M., Aug. 30, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA") and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs and the other truck drivers regularly worked over 40 hours in each workweek. Specifically, Plaintiffs and the other truck drivers were typically scheduled for 12-to-14-hour shifts. Typically, truck drivers would work on a "5-2-5-3" shift schedule, which means they would work five days, have two days off, work five days, and then have three days off before the schedule repeats. However, Plaintiffs and the other truck drivers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the other truck drivers one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 as required by the NMMWA and the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as truck drivers hauling in the State of New Mexico. The Defendants provide bulk transportation in North America, including New Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Allen, Esq. WALLACE & ALLEN, LLP 440 Louisiana, Suite 590 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 224-1744 Facsimile: (713) 600-0034 Email: ballen@wallaceallen.com FIVESTRATA LLC: Bianco Suit Removed to D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jerry Bianco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIVESTRATA, LLC, NEW STRATA, INC., DAYBREAK SOLAR POWER, LLC, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. CV2024-012386 was removed from the Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona, to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on Aug. 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02262-ROS. In the putative class action, Plaintiff alleges that he and class members received unwanted telemarketing calls by or on the behalf of Defendants in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made unsolicited and unauthorized telemarketing phone calls using an artificial or pre-recorded voice without the prior express written consent of Plaintiff and putative class members, in violation of TCPA. In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the TCPA by calling Plaintiff and putative class members who had registered their phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, in violation of TCPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 301 E. Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Email: david@kazlg.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Email: ryan@kazlg.com The Defendants are represented by: Tyler G. Doyle, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 811 Main Street, Suite 1100 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713.646.1374 Email: tgdoyle@bakerlaw.com FLUENT INC: Settlement Reached in Berman TCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------- Fluent Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2024 that the company settled a Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) class action captioned "Daniel Berman v. Freedom Financial Network," which was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2018. The company made a cash payment of $1,100 on March 15, 2024 and entered into a $2,000 interest-bearing note provided by co-defendant, Freedom Financial Network, to satisfy its obligations under the settlement agreement. On May 31, 2023, the parties entered into an Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement, which includes injunctive provisions and payment to plaintiffs of $9.75 million for legal fees and a consumer redress fund. On July 28, 2023, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and the company contributed $3.1 million, payable following the final approval of the settlement. The final approval of the settlement agreement was filed on February 23, 2024. Fluent, Inc. is into digital marketing services, primarily customer acquisition services by operating highly scalable digital marketing campaigns, digital media properties and auxiliary syndicated performance marketplace products. FORWARD MANAGEMENT: De Medeiros Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey De Medeiros, a an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORWARD MANAGEMENT LONG BEACH, INC., DBA KELLER WILLIAMS PACIFIC ESTATES, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 24LBCV01636 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 5, 2024), is brought for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under Labor Code. under the Private Attorneys General Act, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, in addition to seeking declaratory relief and restitution. The Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per workday and/or 40 hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation equal to one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for working overtime hours. Plaintiff conservatively estimates that she worked at least 42 hours per week, thus entitling her to overtime compensation, but due to the Defendants' practice of intentionally misclassifying her as salary-exempt, the Defendants failed to issue Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for the requisite overtime compensation on those occasions that they worked in excess of the hourly/weekly overtime thresholds as set forth in the California Labor Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee. The Defendants were joint employers for all purposes of Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Brown, Esq. Ethan C. Surls, Esq. STANSBURY BROWN LAW, PC 2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Blvd. Venice, CA 90291 Phone: 323-204-3124 Email: dbrown@stansburybrownlaw.com esurls@stansburybrownlaw.com GAMESTOP CORP: Magnuson Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Magnuson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GameStop Corp., Case No. 24-2058 (Mass. Commonwealth, Aug. 5, 2024), is brought against Defendants to recover damages and restitution under the Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Massachusetts Consumer Privacy in Commercial Transactions Act ("CPICTA"). The CPICTA prohibits companies such as the Defendants from requiring consumers to providing their information (e.g., address, telephone number) when making a credit card transaction, unless such information is necessary for the transaction (e.g., shipping or delivery). Nonetheless, and in contravention of the CPICTA, the Defendants requires each of its online shoppers paying by credit card and checking out via its website's credit card transaction form to write personal identification information not required by credit card issuers their email address. The Defendants then uses the collected email addresses to send unwanted commercial solicitations--namely, spam marketing emails ("Spam")--to said consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a pair of boots from Famous Footwear. The Defendant, a video games, video game consoles, and electronics retailer, operates retail locations throughout the nation, including in the Commonwealth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEV, p.c. 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 377-7404 Email: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jarisohn@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com GENESIS HEALTH: C.D. Illinois Narrows Claims in Doe Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James E. Shadid of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of herself, her minor son, J.D., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENESIS HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-04209-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.). Plaintiff Jane Doe brings this action on behalf of herself, her minor son, and a putative class of other individuals, who submitted personal information to the website and online platforms hosted by Defendant Genesis Health System. The Plaintiff, a long-time patient of Genesis, has filed an amended complaint asserting that the Defendant encouraged her and other patients and potential patients (collectively, "patients") to use the website and online platforms. The Plaintiff claims that without their authorization, and unbeknownst to them, Genesis allowed third-party networking services, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook" or "Meta"), Google, LLC, DoubleClick, TVSquared, Adnxs, Akamai mPulse, Geonetric, and Wistia, and potentially others, access to their personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), through tracking technologies, including Facebook's Meta Pixel, embedded on the Genesis website. The matter is now before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and accompanying Memorandum, the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition, and the Plaintiff's Supplemental Authority. The Court notes that in addition to her briefing, the Plaintiff has filed a 41-page "Chart" of various disposition of motions to dismiss throughout the country. Each page contains numerous entries indicating that, in a Pixel case, defendant's motion to dismiss was denied. Judge Shadid notes that the Plaintiff does not explain the facts, relate them to this case, or compare the law in these states to Illinois tort law. It is not the Court's job to review hundreds of cases and make the Plaintiff's argument for her. In addition, Judge Shadid says this can be seen as an end-run around Local Rule 7.1(B)(4)(a), which places a page limit on responses to motions. As a result, was not considered by the Court. Genesis has filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Rule 10(a) motion asserts that the Plaintiff should not be allowed to proceed pseudonymously. In the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Genesis claims that the Plaintiff's common law contract and implied contract claims are preempted by Illinois law, and the Plaintiff's negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment claims are insufficiently pled and barred by the existence of an express contract. In addition, the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead a claim for invasion of privacy; Genesis owed no fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff and the class to be liable for a breach; and the Plaintiff's ICFA claim must be dismissed for several reasons, including the absence of actual damages. This lack of damages is also implicated in Genesis's' Section 12(b)(1) claim that the Plaintiff cannot allege an injury in fact to establish standing. Judge Shadid notes that this case involves highly sensitive information, particularly the Plaintiff's inquiries regarding her son's mental health treatment. As the Plaintiff was the one who undertook these searches on Genesis's online platform, the disclosure of her identity would likely result in the disclosure of her minor son's identity as well. In addition, the Court notes that, while Genesis has objected to the Plaintiff proceeding under a fictitious name, it has failed to identify any particular prejudice. As a result, Judge Shadid holds that the Plaintiff will be allowed to proceed pseudonymously. The Defendant will have leave to reassert, however, in the event this grant of leave impedes discovery or otherwise interferes with the proceedings. The Court finds that the alleged disclosure of the Plaintiff's status as a patient, her physician searches, her scheduling of telehealth appointments, and her identification of health conditions and the treatment sought for those conditions, on behalf of herself and her minor son; as well as her claims that she was subject to targeted ads as a result of the knowing and unauthorized transmission of her personal information, is sufficient to establish an injury in fact fairly traceable to the Defendant. As a result, she has standing to seek money damages and to move for injunctive relief as to any risk of future harm. As the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts to establish standing, Judge Shadid denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss as to this issue. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a breach of express contract as to the promises made in Genesis's privacy policies. Judge Shadid points out that this is enough for this claim to proceed, although the availability of non-economic damages may be in dispute. Judge Shadid also finds that the Plaintiff does not cite an Illinois case allowing claims for express and implied contracts arising from the same documents or promises. Hence, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted as to this claim. The Plaintiff fails to support that any court in Illinois has found that a healthcare facility has a fiduciary duty in relation to patients' private information, Judge Shadid opines, among other things. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part Genesis's Motion to Dismiss. The Court denies the Rule 10 objection to the Plaintiff proceeding pseudonymously; the 12(b)(1) challenge to standing; and the 12(b)(6) challenge to the Plaintiff's Express Contract claims. The Court grants the 12(b)(6) motion dismissing the Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Intrusion upon Seclusion, Disclosure of Private Facts, Breach of Implied Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and ICFA claims. The Plaintiff will have 14 days in which to file a second amended complaint, should she wish. A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Opinion dated Aug. 21, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfsefxf from PacerMonitor.com. GOOGLE LLC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Isaacs Infringement Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled JEFFREY ISAACS & GREENFLIGHT VENTURE CORPORATION, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 9:24-cv-80395-RLR (S.D. Fla.). The lawsuit is a patent infringement case that Plaintiff Jeffrey Isaacs initiated pro se. Judge Rosenberg notes that only a patentee with all substantial rights of a patent can bring an action for patent infringement. At the time the patent in this case was reissued, the patentee was not Mr. Isaacs, it was Greenflight Venture Corporation. Mr. Isaacs did not allege in his Complaint that Greenflight assigned all substantial rights under the patent to him, and patent records indicate no assignment has ever occurred. Instead, Mr. Isaacs alleged that he was merely a partial owner of Greenflight Venture. Accordingly, due to a lack of standing, Mr. Isaacs's patent infringement claim must be dismissed, Judge Rosenberg holds. In response to the foregoing Mr. Isaacs filed an amended complaint. However, Judge Rosenberg opines, the Amended Complaint does not moot out the legal arguments raised in the Motion to Dismiss because the Amended Complaint contains the same problems as the original--Mr. Isaacs cannot sue for patent infringement, and his allegations on this point are essentially unchanged. As a result, Mr. Isaacs' claim for patent infringement in the Amended Complaint is dismissed. Mr. Isaacs, still acting pro se, purports to bring class action claims in the Amended Complaint in addition to his patent infringement claim, but a pro se plaintiff cannot bring class action claims under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Rosenberg holds. Mr. Isaacs' class action claims are, therefore, dismissed as unauthorized under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court's ruling does not affect the class actions claims brought by the new Plaintiff in this action, Greenflight Venture Corporation, which is represented by counsel. Judge Rosenberg notes that Mr. Isaacs has brought one claim in his pro se capacity that is not a class action claim and is not a claim for patent infringement--a Sherman Act antitrust claim. Given that (i) the same claim is brought by Greenflight Venture, (ii) Mr. Isaacs alleges he owns and controls Greenflight Venture, and (iii) Mr. Isaacs has retained an attorney to represent Greenflight Venture's Sherman Act claim in this matter, the Court exercises its case management discretion to sever and stay Mr. Isaacs' pro se Sherman Act claim. Judge Rosenberg says Mr. Isaacs may move for his pro se Sherman Act claim to be reinstated after a final resolution of Greenflight Venture's case against the Defendant. Going forward, then, the only active claims in this case are the claims brought by Greenflight Venture, represented by attorney Ayelet Faerman, and future Rule 11 signature/certifications will be stylized, accordingly. The Defendant will file its responsive pleading or motion to the Amended Complaint within the deadlines provided for the in Federal and Local Rules. Accordingly, the Court rules that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted, and Mr. Isaacs' pro se claims in the Amended Complaint are dismissed and stayed as more fully set forth in this Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4xu7rap3 from PacerMonitor.com. GRILLO'S PICKLES: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Mykaykla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. GRILLO'S PICKLES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06556 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://grillos.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. GRILLO'S PICKLES, INC., operates the Grillo's online interactive Website and retail store across 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, N.Y. 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal HERTZ GLOBAL: Lead Roles Appointed in Doller Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, grants Plaintiff Robert Stephens' Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel in the lawsuit styled EDWARD M. DOLLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., STEPHEN M. SCHERR and ALEXANDRA BROOKS, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00513-JLB-KCD (M.D. Fla.). The Court appoints Robert Stephens to serve as Lead Plaintiff, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, to serve as lead counsel, and Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A., to serve as liaison counsel. The lawsuit is a putative class action against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., its CEO and Chairman Stephen M. Scherr, and its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Alexandra Brooks, alleging they violated federal securities laws. Hertz is a car rental company. Its fleet includes hundreds of thousands of gas-powered and electric vehicles. The vehicles are depreciating assets--they lose value, and depreciation is one of Hertz's largest expenses. Beginning in 2021, Hertz made a significant investment to offer the largest EV rental fleet in North America and one of the largest in the world. According to the complaint, Hertz bought too many electric vehicles, causing its supply to outpace demand. But Hertz was not publicly concerned by the depreciation of its oversized fleet. Between April 2023 and April 2024, it issued statements and quarterly reports highlighting demand for its rental services, while simultaneously downplaying the negative impact of vehicle depreciation on the Company's financial results. As Hertz did so, the putative class members bought stock. Then, in January 2024, Hertz announced it would sell 30,000 electric vehicles to bring its supply in line with demand. In doing so, Hertz incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in vehicle depreciation-related costs. This hurt the company's first-quarter results, which caused its stock price to drop. Hertz shares, which traded at $9.35 before the announcement, hit $3.00 by the end of April. The putative class members claim the Defendants knew their positive representations about the company's business, operations, and prospects were false. They allegedly misrepresented consumer demand for electric vehicles, failed to disclose that Hertz had too many electric vehicles to remain profitable, and downplayed the financial impact of vehicle depreciation to artificially inflate the company's stock price. This, in turn, caused the putative class to overpay for their shares and suffer "significant losses" when the company's stock price fell. The Court begins with three potential lead plaintiffs: Edward Doller, Tom Murdoch, and Robert Stephens. The Hertz Investor Group also petitioned the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff but later withdrew its motion. Doller filed the complaint, while Murdoch and Stephens timely moved for appointment as lead plaintiff. Of the three, Stephens has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. To determine this criteria, the Court considers: "(1) the number of shares purchased during the class period; (2) the number of net shares purchased during the class period; (3) the total net funds expended during the class period; and (4) the approximate losses suffered. Judge Dudek finds each factor points to Stephens. According to his loss chart, Stephens bought more shares during the class period than Murdoch or Doller. He also far outspent them in acquiring his shares and suffered the largest loss when Hertz's stock fell. Judge Dudek adds that Stephens' appointment as lead plaintiff also meets Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Dudek also finds that Levi & Korsinsky, Stephens' choice as lead counsel, is plainly qualified, as demonstrated by the firm's experience litigating securities class actions. Cullin O'Brien, Stephens' choice as liaison counsel, also appears fit to serve as liaison counsel. And with no objections filed, the Court designates Levi & Korsinsky as lead counsel with Cullin O'Brien serving as liaison counsel. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: 1. Plaintiff Robert Stephens' Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel is granted. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), Robert Stephens is appointed to serve as Lead Plaintiff; 2. Stephens is directed to review the Court's order at Doc. 24 and comply with its requirements; 3. Plaintiff Tom Murdoch's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Counsel is denied; 4. Plaintiff Edward M. Doller's request to serve as lead plaintiff is denied; 5. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, is appointed lead counsel for the class; and 6. Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A., is appointed liaison counsel for the class. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/36e2cdhk from PacerMonitor.com. HOBBY ENTERPRISES: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HOBBY ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07960 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons. Because the Defendant's website, www.megahobby.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.megahobby.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Myers Sues Over Religious Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Marie Myers, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES CORP., Case No. MER-L-001510-24 (N.J. Super. Ct., Mercer Cty., Aug. 5, 2024), is brought seeking damages arising from Defendant's unlawful religious discrimination against the Plaintiff. The Defendant crushed the Plaintiff spirit when it told her that her sincerely held religious beliefs and practices meant nothing. She had been working faithfully for the company for a number of years. In requesting a religious accommodation with respect to the company's COVID-19 vaccination mandate, the Plaintiff expressed her religious beliefs, and why the vaccine mandate would inhibit those beliefs. When the Plaintiff sought a promotion, Defendant refused, advising her that she was ineligible because of her anti vaccination beliefs. Even further, because of Ms. Myers beliefs, Defendant started penalizing her and taking money from her paychecks. Many other employees found themselves in the same situation as the Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. Integra LifeSciences Inc. is a corporation existing, operating, and doing business in and under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN] The is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. Nicholas Linker, Esq. ZEMEL LAW, LLC 400 Sylvan Ave., Suite 200 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Facsimile: (973) 282-8603 Email: DZ@zemellawllc.com NL@zemellawllc.com JELD-WEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Gonzalez Class Suit Denied as Moot --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled GABRIEL GONZALEZ, Plaintiff v. JELD-WEN, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01116-JO-VET (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jinsook Ohta of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot. In this wage and hour class action, Plaintiff Gabriel Gonzalez alleges Defendant Jeld-Wen, Inc., failed to properly compensate Gonzalez and the other class members for their hours worked. On July 26, 2024, Jeld-Wen filed a motion to dismiss Gonzalez's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rather than oppose the Motion, Gonzalez filed a first amended complaint (the "FAC") on Aug. 14, 2024. Mr. Gonzalez filed his FAC on Aug. 14, 2024, which is 19 days after he was served with Jeld-Wen's Motion. Because Gonzalez filed his FAC within 21 days of being served with Jeld-Wen's Motion, Judge Ohta holds that Gonzalez properly amended his pleading under Rule 15(a)(1)(B). And, because Gonzalez properly amended his pleading in response to Jeld-Wen's Motion, the Court finds Jeld-Wen's Motion moot. Thus, for the reasons set forth here, the Court denies Jeld-Wen's Motion as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 21, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/chvwedd5 from PacerMonitor.com. JEN BULLER: Gottlieb Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ICF Technology, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sean Gottlieb, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. Jen Buller, Tutor.com, Case No. 1:24-cv-06285-UA (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Jennifer Buller has joined the staff of the Devotion School as the new Vice Principal.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. JERICO PICTURES: Duncan Sues Over Major Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- Thomas Duncan and Victor Seidman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JERICO PICTURES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC DATA, Case No. 0:24-cv-61609-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 29, 2024), is brought on behalf of individuals whose personally identifying information ("PII") was stolen by hackers as part of a major data breach which occurred in April 2024, and which affected Defendant's network. The Defendant breached its duty to Plaintiffs and class members when it failed to implement and maintain adequate cybersecurity procedures and protocols to safeguard Plaintiffs' and class members' PII, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiffs' and class members' PII to cybercriminals and third-party bad actors. But for the Defendant's failure to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity protocols and procedures, Plaintiffs' and class members' PII would not have been inadvertently disclosed to hackers, making Defendant's actions a factual cause of the unauthorized disclosure. The Defendant also proximately caused the unauthorized disclosure because the actions of third-party bad actors such as by clandestine hacker groups like USDoD do not constitute a superseding force that would relieve Defendant of liability because misappropriation of PII for unlawful purposes by cybercriminals is a reasonably foreseeable result of an unauthorized disclosure of PII by a data broker, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have suffered damages due to the Data Breach. The Defendant is a data broker company specializing in background checks and fraud prevention1 and collects and maintains an enormous database of millions of individuals' PII, totaling up to more than 3 billion records according to Defendant's website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 2103 N. Commerce Pkwy. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: nczipperian@millershah.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2011 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law JOSE VALENCIA: Threatened of Arrest in Andrade-Barteldes Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ERNEST ANDRADE-BARTELDES, Plaintiff v. JOSE VALENCIA, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00495-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York warns Defendant Jose Valencia that the Court may issue a warrant for his arrest if he fails to attend a Court conference again. The Court held a telephonic status conference in this matter on Aug. 13, 2024. Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class attended. Neither Defendant Jose Valencia ("Valencia") nor counsel for Valencia attended. Previously, on Dec. 4, 2023, the Court issued a memorandum and order certifying a conditional collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 19 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The class is comprised of all faculty members of ASA College since Jan. 19, 2017. The Court ordered the Defendants to provide a class list containing the names and last known addresses of all putative class members within twenty-one days. On Feb. 23, 2024, the Court held the Defendants in civil contempt for their failure to come into compliance with the Dec. 4, 2023 Order. The Court ruled that contempt sanctions in the amount of $1,000 per diem would begin to run on March 18, 2024, if the Defendants failed to come into compliance. Mr. Valencia wrote to the Court thereafter to state that the lawsuit should be against ASA College and not against him as an employee. Judge Liman notes that the letter is dated Jan. 15, 2024, but it was docketed on March 5, 2024, and it is clear from its content that it was written after a Feb. 23, 2024 conference that he failed to attend. On March 13, 2024, Class Counsel filed a letter stating that Valencia had provided an Excel spreadsheet containing the names, job titles, and cell phone numbers/email addresses for members of the class, but that the spreadsheet did not contain mailing addresses. On March 18, 2024, the Court held a telephonic status conference to discuss the class list. Class Counsel appeared at the conference. Valencia failed to appear. The conference was cancelled by the Court and rescheduled for Aug. 13, 2024. On Aug. 6, 2024, Class Counsel filed a letter indicated that he has not received a class list that complies with the Court's Dec. 4, 2023 Order. The Court's Aug. 13, 2024 conference was held, in part, to determine whether additional contempt sanctions are appropriate to compel compliance. The Court requested the attendance of an attorney from the Federal Defenders of New York given the risk to Valencia that the Court would order his arrest. A member of the Federal Defenders of New York attended the conference. The Court adjourned the conference until Sept. 10, 2024, at 12:00 p.m., to give Class Counsel an opportunity to present evidence that Valencia continues to be in contempt of this Court's Dec. 4, 2023 Order, and that the Court should take further action to cause Valencia to come into compliance with the Order. Such action could include the issuance of a warrant for Valencia's arrest. Parties are directed to dial into the Court's teleconference number at 888-251-2909, Access Code 2123101, and follow the necessary prompts on Sept. 10, 2024. If that time proves inconvenient, either party may write to the Court for an adjournment. Valencia is warned that failure to attend could result in additional contempt sanctions. Class Counsel is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Valencia forthwith and to file proof of service on the docket. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/22h9jhn8 from PacerMonitor.com. JOY CONE: Davey Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Cone Packers ----------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN DAVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOY CONE CO., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01246 (W.D. Pa., September 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked as a cone packer at the Defendant's manufacturing plant in Hermitage, Pennsylvania from approximately February 2023 through July 14, 2024. Joy Cone Co. is a manufacturer of ice cream cones and related food products, headquartered in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 Email: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com KASEYA US LLC: Machado Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jose Machado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KASEYA US LLC, Case No. 2024-012422-CA-01 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 9, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-23031-XXXX. In the Complaint, Machado alleges he was not paid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan L. Quiles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 The Defendants are represented by: Paul B. Ranis, Esq. Sabrina D. Niewialkouski, Esq. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 768-8239 Face: (954) 759-5506 Email: ranisp@gtlaw.com niewialkouskis@gtlaw.com - and - Catherine H. Molloy, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 318-5700 Fax: (813) 318-5900 Email: molloyk@gtlaw.com LIFE EXTENSION: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LIFE EXTENSION FOUNDATION BUYERS CLUB, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07959 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons. Because the Defendant's website, www.lifeextension.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.lifeextension.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com LOTTERY.COM INC: Court Dismisses Million Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Lottery.com Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2024, that on February 6, 2024, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss a class action captioned "Preston Million, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Lottery.com, Inc. f/k/a Trident Acquisitions Corp., Anthony DiMatteo, Matthew Clemenson and Ryan Dickinson" (Case No. 1:22-cv-07111-JLR). On June 12, 2024, plaintiffs amended their complaint while on July 12, 2024, the company filed its motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. On August 8, 2024, the plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to the complaint. On August 19, 2022, a certain Preston Million filed a class action complaint against the company and certain of its former officers and directors in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York, styled "Preston Million, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Lottery.com, Inc. f/k/a Trident Acquisitions Corp., Anthony DiMatteo, Matthew Clemenson and Ryan Dickinson" (Case No. 1:22-cv-07111-JLR). It alleged violations by all defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). On November 18, 2022, the court ordered the appointment of RTD Bros, LLC, Todd Benn, Tom Benn and Tomasz Rzedian (collectively the "Lottery Investor Group") as lead plaintiff and Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP as lead counsel for plaintiffs and for the class in the case. On December 5, 2022, the court stipulated a Scheduling Order in the case. On January 12, 2023, the company's legal counsel timely filed its Notice of Appearance. On January 31, 2022, plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint adding Kathryn Lever, Marat Rosenberg, Vadim Komissarov, Thomas Gallagher, Gennadii Butkevych, Ilya Ponomarev as additional defendants in the case. It alleged, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b),14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses including counsel fees and expert fees. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 3, 2023, under the newly consolidated caption and its proposed order to dismiss the matter. Plaintiffs were expected to file their opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than May 18, 2023, which would trigger the company's deadline to file its reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss no later than June 20, 2023. Lottery.com Inc., a digital publisher based in Spicewood TX, provides lottery data results, jackpots, results, and other data. LUXURBAN HOTELS: Faces Pack Shareholder Suit Over Hotel Lease -------------------------------------------------------------- Luxurban Hotels Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 20, 2024, that it is party to a class action brought in the United States District Court Southern District of New York entitled "Janice Pack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as plaintiff, vs. LuxUrban Hotels Inc., Ferdinand and Shanoop Kothari, as Defendants," alleging, among other causes of action, securities violations in connection with its disclosure of the opening of a hotel for which a definitive lease had not then been executed and delivered. The parties to that proposed hotel opening had begun working toward a transaction in early fall 2023. LuxUrban Hotels Inc. leases entire existing hotels on a long-term basis and rents out hotel rooms in the properties it leases. It currently has a portfolio of hotel rooms in New York, Miami Beach, New Orleans, and Los Angeles through long-term lease agreements and manages these hotels directly. MAGELLAN HEALTH: Care Coordinators Class Certified in Deakin Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Matthew L. Garcia of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico certifies a class of care coordinators in the lawsuit entitled MAUREEN DEAKIN, RACHEL CLERGE, CHERYL JOHNSON, LESLEY MITCHELL, MAY WOJCIK, DALE KESSLER, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., and MAGELLAN HSRC, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00773-MLG-KK (D.N.M.). Plaintiff Maureen Deakin and several other individuals worked as care coordinators ("CCs") for Defendants Magellan Health, Inc., and Magellan HSRC, Inc. (collectively "Magellan"), who provide case management and behavioral health services in New Mexico. Deakin claims that she and all other similarly situated CCs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without being paid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"). The Court conditionally certified an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and discovery ensued. Magellan now moves to decertify the FLSA collective, while Deakin moves for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) to pursue NMMWA claims on behalf of herself and her fellow CCs. Relying primarily on Muecke v. A-Reliable Auto Parts and Wreckers, Inc., No. 01 C 2361, 2002 WL 1359411 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2002), Magellan argues, among other things, that Rule 23(b)(3) certification is incompatible with the collective action provisions of the FLSA. Having reviewed the parties' filings and the applicable law and having held a hearing on both motions on Jan. 17, 2024, the Court grants Deakin's motion for Rule 23(b)(3) class certification, and grants in part and denies in part Magellan's motion to decertify the FLSA collective. With respect to Magellan's motion, Judge Garcia opines, among other things, that Magellan's use of Muecke is out of date, ill-informed, and has already been disposed of previously. There is nothing incompatible in combining an FLSA collective action and a Rule 23(b)(3) class action in the same case. Judge Garcia points out that Magellan fails to refute Deakin's argument that class adjudication is the superior method of resolving in this case. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy of counsel, as well as the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and superiority. Hence, class certification is appropriate. The Court will revise the FLSA collective and adopt Deakin's narrowed definition. All non-New Mexico plaintiffs and all New Mexico plaintiffs, who do not fall within the narrowed definition, are dismissed without prejudice. Because equitable tolling is not justified here, the Court will deny Deakin's request to toll the statute of limitations for the dismissed plaintiffs for 120 days following the entry of this Order. As for the remaining New Mexico CCs, Judge Garcia finds all three factors under Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1102 (10th Cir. 2001) weigh against decertification, and so the Court will deny Magellan's motion for decertification in all other respects. For these reasons, the Court finds that this action may proceed as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Court, therefore, orders as follows. First, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and certifies the following class: All current and former Care Coordinators employed by the Defendants in New Mexico from Oct. 1, 2013, to the final date of judgment (the "Class"). The term "Care Coordinators" refers to individuals that provided care coordination services pursuant to the HSD Contract (and any amendments or restatements thereof) and held a job title that included the term "care coordinator," including the job titles "Care Coordinator," "Care Coordinator--Unlicensed," and "Care Coordinator--Licensed." The term "Care Coordinator" also includes individuals that performed the foregoing care coordination services under the HSD Contract and held the title "Senior Care Worker" prior to December 2016. The Court appoints Maureen Deakin as Class Representative and Travis M. Hedgpeth, J. Derek Braziel, Jack Siegel, and their respective law firms as Class Counsel. Because Magellan has not stated a position on the form and content of Deakin's proposed judicial notice, the parties are ordered to confer and submit a joint judicial notice form within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order. In the alternative, Magellan may file a stipulation approving Deakin's proposed judicial notice prior to the expiration of the ten-day deadline. Second, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion for Decertification of the Conditionally Certified Collective Action. The Court vacates the prior conditionally certified collective and certifies the following narrowed collective: All current and former Care Coordinators employed by Defendants in New Mexico from Oct. 1, 2013, to the final date of judgment (the "New Mexico Class"). The term "Care Coordinators" refers to individuals that provided care coordination services pursuant to the HSD contract (and any amendments or restatements thereof) and held a job title that included the term "care coordinator," including the job titles "Care Coordinator," "Care Coordinator--Unlicensed," and "Care Coordinator--Licensed." The term "Care Coordinator also includes individuals that performed the foregoing care coordination services under the HSD Contract and held the title "Senior Care Worker" prior to December 2016. To the extent that Magellan seeks decertification of this narrowed collective, Judge Garcia holds that that request is denied, but the Court grants Magellan's request to decertify non-New Mexico plaintiffs and New Mexico plaintiffs, who do not fall within the narrowed collective. These Plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. The Court denies Deakin's request for equitable tolling of the statutes of limitation applicable to the dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3eyzrdp8 from PacerMonitor.com. MARU SPORTS: Alvarado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Elfidio Cahuec Alvarado and Walfred Leonardo Castro Canahui, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARU SPORTS INC. and XTRMGEARS INC. d/b/a DYNAMICS MARTIAL ADRENALINE ZONE and CHONG TAE KIM, ESTHER KIM, STACEY KIM, and ANDRO KIM, as individuals, Case No. 2:24-cv-06077 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2024), is brought against the Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime wage and damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Although the Plaintiffs regularly worked for over 40 hours or more hours per week, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants. MARU SPORTS INC., is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 MDL 2873: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Boggs Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID BOGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04800-RMG (D.S.C., September 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, hypothyroidism. The Boggs case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 23710 US Hwy A-1 Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com MDL 2873: Bowman Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products -------------------------------------------------------------- GUY BOWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04816-RMG (D.S.C., September 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The Bowman case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Cater Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES CATER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04826-RMG (D.S.C., September 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. The Cater case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 23710 US Hwy A-1 Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com MDL 2873: Faces Wood Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects ------------------------------------------------------------- MARION WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04821-RMG (D.S.C., September 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The Wood case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 23710 US Hwy A-1 Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com MDL 2873: Nichols Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLIE NICHOLS JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04825-RMG (D.S.C., September 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The Nichols case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 23710 US Hwy A-1 Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com MDL 2873: Schmidt Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE SCHMIDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04799-RMG (D.S.C., September 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer. The Schmidt case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 23710 US Hwy A-1 Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com MDL 2873: Smith Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------- GRAHAM SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04824-RMG (D.S.C., September 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma. The Smith case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 23710 US Hwy A-1 Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com MDL 2903: Settlement in Poppe v. Fisher Price Wins Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Poppe v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00870 (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 Poppe 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=kj13xh at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2903: Settlement in Willis v. Fisher Price Wins Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Willis v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01107 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order granting 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 Willis 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=whppkU at no extra charge.[CC] METROPICA RESIDENTIAL: Herzburn Sues Over Unlawful Calls -------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Herzburn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. METROPICA RESIDENTIAL I, LLC, Case No. CACE-24-011088 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Aug. 5, 2024), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"). To promote its services, Defendant engages in aggressive telephonic sales calls to consumers with no regards for consumers' rights under the TCPA. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption Of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person. The Defendant is a real estate developer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com MEYER CORPORATION: Brennan Sues Over Unlawful Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Brennan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MEYER CORPORATION, U.S., Case No. 4:24-cv-06199 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 2024), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") unlawful advertisement or marketing text messages. The Defendant routinely violates and, in turn, by delivering, or causing to be delivered, more than one advertisement or marketing text message to residential telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry ("DNC Registry") without prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA. The Plaintiff did not request information or promotional materials from Defendant. The Plaintiff never provided his telephone number to Defendant. The Plaintiff did not sign up for or request text messages from Defendant. The Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of the subject text messages in that he suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into his life, and a private nuisance, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been the subscriber to and customary user of his cellular telephone number. The Defendant is a corporation with its principal place of business in this District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Phone: (855) 384-3262 Email: dana@danaoliverlaw.com MIGOM GLOBAL: AMJ Global Sues Over Securities Laws Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ AMJ Global Entertainment, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIGOM GLOBAL CORP., MIGOM BANK LTD., THOMAS A. SCHAETTI, JUERGEN BLAHA, GREGORY DONAHUE, MICHAEL HERZER, BENNO KLEBL, ANDREW WORDSWORTH, JOHANN GUDENUS, STEPHEN LENDHART, and JOHN DOES 1-12, Case No. 1:24-cv-06600 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of all persons or entities who, between December 6, 2019, and August 25, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Migom Global Corp. on the OTC Pink Markets or pursuant to other domestic transactions (the "Class") and to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. Migom's CEO and its largest shareholder, Defendant Thomas Schaetti had been providing fraudulent financial statements to the SEC and Migom's customers while he was in fact funnelling the tens of millions of dollars in customers' deposits into other companies he owned and controlled. The Commonwealth of Dominica has since instituted international criminal proceedings against Schaetti and shut down the bank's operations, while the SEC has suspended trading of Defendants' securities in the US markets, thereby causing a complete loss for all Migom's investors amounting to $750 million. Accordingly, Plaintiff files this action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated victims who were damaged by Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations that their banking business was profitable and growing when, in reality, they were lying to auditors, investors, and US regulatory agencies to conceal the fact that the bank deposits were being diverted and stolen, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired Migom Global's securities, in the United States. Migom Bank Ltd. is a digital banking institution organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Dominica with offices, employees, operations, and back office located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey W. Gutchess, Esq. Bernardo N. de Mello Franco, Esq. AXS LAW GROUP, PLLC 2121 NW 2nd Avenue, Suite 201 Miami, FL 33127 Phone: 305.297.1878 Email: jeff@axslawgroup.com bernardo@axslawgroup.com eservice@axslawgroup.com MNGI DIGESTIVE: Schroeder Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------ Kathleen Schroeder, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MNGI DIGESTIVE HEALTH, P.A., Case No. 27-CV-24-11590 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty., Aug. 5, 2024), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs and other similarly situated MNGI patients' personally identifiable Information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), including name, date of birth, Social Security number, and medical information (the "Private Information"), from criminal hackers. On August 25, 2023, MNGI discovery unauthorized activity within its digital environment. Following the discovery, MNGI conducted an internal Investigation and determined that an unauthorized cyber actor was able to access its network on August 20, 2023 (the "Data Breach Incident"). On July 15, 2024, MNGI set out data breach letters (the "Notice") to individuals, including Plaintiff, whose information was compromised as a result of the Data Breach Incident. According to MNGI's submission to the Maine Attorney General's website, approximately 765,937 individuals were impacted. Despite learning of the Data Breach Incident m August 2023, MNGI waited until July 15, 2024 to notify Plaintiff and Class Members. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea for eleven months that their Private Information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Class Members, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of Implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of confidence, says the complaint. The Plaintiff obtained healthcare or related services from MNGI. MNGI is a nationally recognized leader in gastroenterology diagnosis, quality, and care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com grunfeld@kolauyers.com MOBIVITY HOLDINGS: Faces Abboud TCPA Suit in Arizona Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Mobivity Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2024, that it is named in " Abboud v. Circle K Stores Case," United States District Court, Dist. Arizona, Case No 2:23-cv-01683-DWL alleging that Mobivity and its business partner initiated text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act regulations relating to the National "Do Not Call Registry." Mobivity Holdings Corp. is in the business of developing and operating proprietary platforms over which brands and enterprises can conduct national and localized, data-driven mobile marketing campaigns. MONSANTO COMPANY: Roberts Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David E. Roberts, Joyce Roberts, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, DOES 1-50, Case No. 3:24-cv-01249-W-MSB was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 29, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-06131-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Courtney M. Vasquez, Esq. FOX LAW APC 201 Lomas Santa Fe Dr., Suite 420 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Phone: (805) 390-7892 Email: courtney@foxlawapc.com - and - Santo J. Riccobono, Esq. Tobin D Ellis, Esq. ELLIS RICCOBONO LLP 2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 260 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (424) 901-1202 Fax: (310) 861-8540 Email: santo@ertriallawyers.com tobin@ertriallawyers.com MONTE NIDO HOLDINGS: Aragon Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monte Nido Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Stacy Aragon, individually and on all others similarly situated v. Monte Nido Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-23312-JEM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 29, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Monte Nido Holdings, LLC is a Malibu, California-based provider of treatment for eating disorders and exercise addiction.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Email: firm@ellzeylaw.com - and - Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Fax: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com NIPPON SHEET GLASS: Harpel Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rebecca Harpel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NIPPON SHEET GLASS CO., LTD., Case No. 3:24-cv-01370-JRK (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 9, 2024), is brought against Defendant for Defendant’s willful failure to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages as well as failure to comply with all other requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (“OPPA”) and unjust enrichment common law. The Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and OPPA Subclass (who worked overtime hours, as applicable) are entitled to timely paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek. The Defendant shortchanged its non-exempt employees and failed to pay overtime compensation through unlawful practices that do not pay all overtime hours worked at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates for hours more than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant consistently, willfully, and intentionally failed to pay the Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and State Law Classes for all hours, including overtime hours, worked, at the statutory overtime rate required, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee from July, 2020 until the middle of July, 2024. The Defendant is “one of the world's leading suppliers of glass and glazing systems in the business areas of Architectural, Automotive and Creative Technology."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, OH 43214 Phone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370 Toledo, OH 43606 Phone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 Email: Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC Phone: (216) 912-2221 Fax: (440) 846-1625 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC Phone: (216) 912-2221 Fax: (440) 846-1625 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310 Strongsville, OH 44136 Email: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com O POSITIVE: Connor Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as James Connor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. O POSITIVE, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company; RALPH LAUCELLA, an individual; MARC GRILL, an individual; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 24STCV16896 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07449. The Plaintiff's First Claim alleges that Defendants failed to pay final wages owed to the Plaintiff and Class Members and that Defendants were "routinely tardy in their wage payments to crew." In addition, the Complaint makes repeated claims that wages remain unpaid for members of the class.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott J. Witlin, Esq. Michael P. Witczak, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 284-3880 Facsimile: (310) 284-3894 Email: scott.witlin@btlaw.com michael.witczak@btlaw.com OCLARO INC: Settlement Reached in Saisravan Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Lumentum Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended June 29, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2024, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 12, 2024 entered an order approving the settlement in all respects and dismissing "Saisravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al.," No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD with prejudice. On July 26, 2024, the court entered an order awarding attorneys' fees and expenses and service award to Karri as class representative after a hearing on an amended motion on August 17, 2023. The Karri lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Oclaro and its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by disseminating an incomplete and misleading Form S-4, including proxy statement/prospectus. It further alleged that Oclaro's directors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise proper control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. Lumentum acquired optical equipment manufacturer, Oclaro, Inc., in 2018. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages to be awarded to the plaintiff and any class, if a class is certified, and litigation costs, including attorneys' fees. After the plaintiff was appointed as lead plaintiff and his counsel as lead counsel, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 15, 2019. The first amended complaint, also named Lumentum as a defendant but Lumentum has since been dismissed from the action. On October 8, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On December 1, 2020, defendants answered the first amended complaint. On September 17, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Defendants moved to stay discovery in light of the second amended complaint. On January 11, 2022, the court struck the second amended complaint as untimely, terminated defendants' motions to dismiss as moot, and lifted the stay. The case proceeded through fact and expert discovery. On August 16, 2022, the lead plaintiff moved for class certification and to be appointed class representative. Defendants opposed the motion. The action subsequently was stayed while the parties participated in a mediation. On January 18, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement informing the court of an agreement in principle between the parties for a class-wide settlement of the Karri lawsuit. On January 24, 2023, in light of the potential settlement, the court vacated all pretrial and trial dates and ordered the lead plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by March 17, 2023. The lead plaintiff filed his motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on March 16, 2023, and defendants filed a statement of non-opposition on March 30, 2023. On April 20, 2023, the court held a hearing on lead plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The court declined to grant lead plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval and ordered lead plaintiff to file a revised motion by May 22, 2023. Lead plaintiff filed his Revised Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement on May 22, 2023, defendants filed a response in support of the Amended Motion on June 5, 2023, and the lead plaintiff submitted his reply on June 12, 2023. The hearing on the Amended Motion took place on August 17, 2023 and the court preliminarily approved the settlement. On January 11, 2024, lead plaintiff filed a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, for Certification of the Settlement Class and for Approval of the Plan of Allocation, and supporting papers. On January 25, 2024, lead plaintiff filed a Reply in Support of Motions for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. Lumentum Holdings Inc. is an industry-leading provider of optical and photonic products addressing a range of end-market applications for manufacturing, inspection, and life-science applications. ODDITY TECH: Hoare Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brian Hoare, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oddity Tech Ltd., Oran Holtzman, Lindsay Drucker Mann, Shiran Holtzman-Erel, Michael Farello, Lilach Payorski, Case No. 1:24-cv-05037 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 30, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06571-MMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Securities Exchange Act. ODDITY -- https://oddity.com/ -- is a consumer tech platform built to transform the global beauty and wellness industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Alexander Hood, Esq. James Michael LoPiano, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue 20th Floor New York, CA 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 Email: ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com OHANA MILITARY: Bid to Dismiss Powell's Amended Complaint OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's class action first amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled CLEOPHAS C. POWELL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, LLC, HUNT MH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00184-LEK-KJM (D. Haw.). Before the Court is Defendants Ohana Military Communities, LLC ("Ohana") and Hunt MH Property Management, LLC's ("Hunt" and collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action First Amended Complaint Filed Nov. 21, 2023. Plaintiff Cleophas C. Powell, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated, filed the memorandum in opposition on June 26, 2024, and the Defendants filed their reply on July 3, 2024. The matter came on for hearing on July 17, 2024. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court rules that the Defendants' Motion is denied insofar as the Court finds that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged injury-in-fact, granted insofar as the portion of Count V alleging an unfair or deceptive trade or practice ("UDAP") claim is dismissed with prejudice, and granted in part and denied in part insofar as the portion of Count V alleging an unfair methods of competition ("UMOC") claim is dismissed without prejudice. The lawsuit is a putative class action about the Defendants' role in the provision of contaminated water to their tenants, and the subsequent ramifications. The Class Action First Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint") was filed in the First Circuit Court of the State of Hawai'i ("state court") on Nov. 21, 2023, and the case was removed on April 22, 2024. The Amended Complaint alleges: the Plaintiff leases residential housing in the City and County of Honolulu that is managed and leased by the Defendants; the Defendants acquired contaminated water from the United States Navy-operated water system following fuel spills at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, which the Defendants delivered to the Plaintiff; tenants entered into leases with the Defendants for residential housing, which included the provision of potable water in compliance with state law; the Defendants had knowledge of the risk of water contamination, and did not warn the Plaintiff of this risk; and the Plaintiff has been forcibly evicted from his homes as a result of the Defendants' failure to provide safe water. Judge Kobayashi notes that the Amended Complaint uses "Plaintiffs" to describe Cleophas C. Powell, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated. As previously noted, the Court uses "Plaintiff" to refer to the same. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their lease agreement with the Plaintiff by failing to provide safe water; and the Plaintiff has suffered harm and incurred expenses due to the Defendants' conduct, including overpayment of rent, and loss of use and enjoyment of his home and community. The Amended Complaint alleges the following claims: breach of contract against the Defendants ("Count I"); breach of the implied warranty of habitability against the Defendants ("Count II"); violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes Chapter 521, Landlord Tenant Code against Ohana ("Count III"); a UDAP claim and UMOC claim in violation of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes Sections 480-2 against the Defendants ("Count IV"); nuisance against the Defendants ("Count V"); and wrongful eviction against the Defendants ("Count VI"). The Plaintiff seeks: general, special, treble, consequential, and punitive damages; attorneys' fees and costs; disgorgement of profits; return of all rents and other remedies guaranteed by Hawai'i Revised Statutes Chapter 521; prejudgment interest; and any other appropriate relief. In their motion, the Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because the Plaintiff fails to allege a cognizable injury, the portion of Count IV alleging a UDAP claim should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing, and the portion of Count IV alleging a UMOC claim should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. While the Amended Complaint is couched in language referring to the proposed class of plaintiffs generally, Judge Kobayashi says it is clear that the Amended Complaint alleges the Plaintiff overpaid rent, and suffered the loss of use and enjoyment of his home and community. In all counts, the Plaintiff alleges the same baseline injuries: overpayment of rent for services and loss of use and enjoyment in their homes and community. Judge Kobayashi holds that these injuries are sufficient for the Plaintiff to allege standing. While it is true that the Plaintiff does not allege he was exposed to contaminated water in his home, or that the contaminated water was provided directly to his home, Judge Kobayashi points out that these constitute a merits issue, not a standing issue. Hence, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged injury in-fact for all claims alleged. Judge Kobayashi also finds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the UDAP claim. The UDAP claim is dismissed. Dismissal is with prejudice, because it is clear amendment of that portion of Count IV would be futile. Absent from the Amended Complaint are allegations outlining the effect of the Defendants' actions on the price or availability of leased housing in the relevant geographic market, or on any other characteristic of a competitive market. Therefore, Judge Kobayashi holds that the portion of Count IV alleging a UMOC claim must be dismissed. Because it is possible the Plaintiff could plead further allegations to address this defect, dismissal is without prejudice and with leave to amend. For these reasons, the Court rules that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action First Amended Complaint Filed Nov. 21, 2023, filed May 13, 2024, is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion is granted insofar as the portion of Count V alleging a UDAP claim is dismissed with prejudice and insofar as the portion of Count V alleging a UMOC claim is dismissed. The Motion is denied insofar as the dismissal of the UMOC claim is without prejudice and insofar as the Court finds the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged injury-in-fact to pursue his claims. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint to cure the defects in the Amended Complaint that are identified in this Order. If the Plaintiff chooses to do so, the Plaintiff must file a second amended complaint by Sept. 20, 2024, and it must comply with the rulings in this Order. The Plaintiff is cautioned that, if he fails to file a second amended complaint by Sept. 20, 2024, the portion of Count V alleging a UMOC claim will be dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 21, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2kkj8fwv from PacerMonitor.com. OMEGAPRO FOREX: United Investor Sues Over Money Laundering & Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------------ United Investor Community, Inc., Lyadunni Udugba Olungbenga Bernard Adesuyi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OMEGAPRO FOREX TRADING, LTD, GO-GLOBAL, LTD, HIS HIGHNESS SHEIKH HAMDAN, BIN MOHAMMED BIN RASHID, AL MAKTOUM (CROWN PRINCE OF DUBAI) UNITED ARAB EMIRATE, CITY OF DUBAI, BROKER GROUP, LTD, PULSE WORLD, SZAKACS ANDREAS ATTILA, NEVZAT DIKMEN, RIITTA DIKMEN, DILAWARJIT SINGH, NADER POORDELJOO, PAULO TUYNMAN, JUAN CARLOS REYNOSO SR., MICHAEL SHANNON SIMS, OMEGA WORLD, LTD, NEPTUNE TRADE, LTD, OMP MONEY, LTD, OMP EXCHANGE, MELDI CHERIF, MICHAEL LETYNSKI, ROBERT VELGHE, KONSTANTIN IGNATOV, BOGDAN S. BARBU, ZXN INVESTMENT HOLDING, LTD, STEPHANE PLANTE, NICK LEMAY, JOHN BELFORT, ERIC THOMAS, JOHN C. MAXWELL, CHRISTOPHER HAMILTON, ONE COIN, RUJA IGNATOVA, PAULO TUYMAN, OMNIA TECH, RODRIGUES SODANSOU, LAURENT LOUIS, ALI KHALIL, ERIC WORRE, MARINA WORRE, JORDAN ROSS BELFORT, STEVEN SEAGAL, TRADERS DOMAIN FOREX, LTD, MARCUS TODD BRISCO, ALGO CAPITAL, LLC, YAS CASTELLUM, LLC, YAS CASTELLUM FINANCIAL, LLC, TIN QUOC TRAN, FRANCISCO DAVID STORY, SAEG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, FREDERICK "TED" SAFRANKO AKA TEDDY JOSEPH SAFRANKO ROBERT D. COLLAZO JR., JUAN HERMAN, JORGE SALCEDO, ROBERT COLLAZO JR., JUAN HERMAN, JULIO CESAR CRUZ, JULIAN CRUZ, HOLTON BUGGS, JOHN DOE 1 TO 1,000, Case No. 1:24-cv-23359-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 31, 2024), is brought for money laundering, fraud, civil conspiracy to commit fraud, civil violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("Federal RICO"), civil violations of the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("Florida RICO"), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation and failure to supervise against the Defendants. This is an action alleging the causes of actions listed above on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities (other than Defendants, and all promoters, directors or anyone who has withdrawn more money than they initially invested) who purchased or otherwise acquired investment services from the Defendants between January 2017 and through January 2024 (the "Class Period"). Plaintiffs seek to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Racketeering Acts and other laws. The Defendants together as a group, defrauded hundreds of thousands of investors worldwide out of over 10 billion dollars by promoting two consecutive fraudulent investment schemes. The first was a fraudulent investment scheme called OMEGAPRO, LTD ("OMEGAPRO") and the second, another fraudulent scheme, called GOGLOBAL, LTD ("GoGlobal"). Each was a pyramid scheme where promoters who invested in the scheme earned cryptocurrency for recruiting others to do the same. In the OMEGAPRO scheme, investors were promised profits from cryptocurrency trading but were paid from the cryptocurrency assets of other investors, says the complaint. The Plaintiff United Investor Communiy is not-for-profit Corporation duly incorporated in the State of Florida. OMEGAPRO FOREX, LTD was an illegal pyramid scheme which guaranteed a 200% return on investment ("ROI") from cryptocurrency investment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wil Morris, Esq. MORRIS LEGAL, PC 2800 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 530 Miami, FL 33137 Phone: (305) 444-3437 Fax: (305)444-3457 Toll Free: 1-866-815-1398 Email: Wilm@morrislegalfla.com PECO FOODS: Caldwell Sues Over Failure to Protect Information ------------------------------------------------------------- Anjessica Caldwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PECO FOODS, INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-01181-LSC (N.D. Ala., Aug. 29, 2024), is brought against Defendant to redress Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the personal identifiable information of likely thousands of individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of Defendant's network in violation of its legal obligations. On December 4, 2023, an unknown actor gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems. As a result, approximately 48,170 individuals, including Plaintiff and the Class Members, have had their personal identifiable information ("PII") exposed (the "Data Breach"). In carrying out its business, Defendant obtains, collects, uses, and derives a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and the Class. As such, Defendant assumed the legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. In December of 2023, Defendant discovered that an unauthorized third party obtained access and exfiltrated data from its servers containing PII. In response, Defendant conducted an investigation and confirmed the extent of the Data Breach on May 23, 2024. Despite this, Defendant delayed notifying Plaintiff and the Class Members of the Data Breach until the end of July 2024. According to the Defendant, the PII exposed in the breach included Social Security numbers and dates of birth. On July 24, 2024, Defendant began notifying Plaintiff and the Class Members of the Data Breach. Due to the Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained everything they needed to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals. The Defendant betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and the other Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal identifiable information and thereby enabling cybercriminals to steal such valuable and sensitive information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an employee of Peco. Peco, a Tuscaloosa, Alabama based company, is a poultry production company that serves tens of thousands of customers nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 322-8880 Fax: (205) 328-2711 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com PERMIAN RESOURCES: Link Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Gustave Link, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Permian Resources Corp. formerly known as: Centennial Resource Development, Inc., Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Continental Resources Inc., Diamondback Energy, Inc., EOG Resources Inc., Hess Corporation, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Pioneer Natural Resources Company, Case No. 5:24-cv-05321 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on Aug. 29, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00869-MLG-LF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Antitrust. Permian Resources Corporation -- https://permianres.com/ -- is an independent oil and natural gas company, focuses on the development of crude oil and related liquids-rich natural gas reserves in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore Walter Maya, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com PETS ETC INC: Ramos Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Eslimerari Ramos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PETS ETC, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07962 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons. Because the Defendant's website, www.petsetconline.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.petsetconline.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com PRIME HYDRATION: Heaven Sues Over Wiretapping of Communications --------------------------------------------------------------- Shantay Heaven, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRIME HYDRATION LLC, Case No. 240801237 (Pa. Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Aug. 9, 2024), is brought against Prime for aiding, agreeing with, employing, procuring, or otherwise enabling the wiretapping of the electronic communications of visitors to its website, https://drinkprime.com/ (the “Website”) in violation of Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (“WESCA”). Specifically, Defendant aids, agrees with, procures, or otherwise enables Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google LLC, third-party service providers, to collect Website visitors’ communications while on the Website. The Defendant procures Meta and Google to eavesdrop on Website visitors’ communications as visitors conduct searches for products on the Website without visitors’ prior consent. Defendant enabled Meta’s interception of visitors’ communications by employing Meta’s services to track users across the Website using Meta’s pixel tracker—the Meta Pixel. The Defendant also enabled Google’s interception of visitors’ communications by employing Google’s services to track users across the website using the Google Analytics code. Defendant, Meta, and Google then use this information to bolster Defendant’s marketing and advertising efforts, and the entities are therefore enriched by Meta and Google’s surreptitious acquisition of personal information (and Defendant’s enablement thereof). The electronic communications made in response to Website visitors’ searches conducted on the Website are contemporaneously captured or otherwise acquired by Meta and Google to, among other things, assist Defendant with its marketing, advertising, and data analytics efforts. The nature of the Meta and Google licensing agreements Defendant is such that Defendant “procured Meta and Google to intercept or endeavor to intercept” electronic communications in violation of Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (“WESCA”), says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited Defendant’s Website. The Defendant markets and sells a variety of sports and energy drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Atlee, Esq. ATLEE HALL, LLP 415 North Duke Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Phone: (717) 393-9596 Facsimile: (717) 393-2138 Email: mcatlee@atleehall.com - and - Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aleslie@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com PROBODY WAREHOUSE: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PROBODY WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-07958 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons. Because the Defendant's website, www.probodyonline.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.probodyonline.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com RES-CARE INC: Faces Bolden Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------- KYNDRA R. BOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RES-CARE, INC., d/b/a BRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES a/k/a NORMAL LIFE INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00119-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind., September 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and unpaid accrued vacation wages after resignation in violation of Indiana Wage Payment Statute. Ms. Bolden worked for Res-Care as a home caregiver from approximately August 2022 until she was promoted to the position of area supervisor in approximately December 2022. She voluntarily resigned her employment in May 2023. Res-Care, Inc. is a provider of home and community-based health and companionship services headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 Email: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Court Tosses Giana Copyright Infringement Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned ALAN GIANA, Plaintiff v. SHEIN DISTRIBUTION CORP., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02599-JSR (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Alan Giana brings a copyright infringement claim against Defendants Shein Distribution Corp., Roadget Business Pte., Ltd. d/b/a Shein, Shein Technology LLC, and Shein US Services, LLC. On June 7, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Defendants also moved, in the alternative, to strike the Plaintiff's class action allegations. After reviewing the parties' briefs, the Court held oral argument on both motions. After careful consideration, the Court grants the motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion to strike the Plaintiff's class action allegations is dismissed as moot. Judge Rakoff says an Opinion explaining the reasons for this ruling will issue in due course, at which time judgment will be entered. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bvc2kx3f from PacerMonitor.com. SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Suit Tossed; Baer May File 2nd Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an Opinion and an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned ROBERT BAER and ALFRED O'MEARA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. SHIFT4 PAYMENTS, INC., and JARED ISAACMAN, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-03206-JFL (E.D. Pa.). For the reasons set forth in the Opinion, the Court rules that the Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Within twenty (20) days of the date of the Order, the Plaintiffs may file a second amended complaint. The lawsuit is a class action securities case. The Plaintiffs allege that as Shift4's share price fell in 2022, the Company's chief executive officer faced substantial personal financial pressure. To relieve the pressure, the Company engaged in a series of questionable accounting and business maneuvers designed to keep the Company's share price afloat. When the impropriety of these maneuvers came to light, the share price dipped, and this lawsuit ensued. The Court previously consolidated like actions and appointed Baer as Lead Plaintiff. Baer then filed an Amended Complaint, which the Defendants now move to dismiss. Shift4 is a publicly traded technology company, which provides, among other things, integrated and mobile point-of-sale ("POS") solutions. The Company's founder and CEO is Jared Isaacman. He controls a substantial portion of the Company, affording him significant influence over all matters requiring stockholder approval including the election and removal of directors, the size of the board, and any approval of significant corporate transactions, and continues to have significant control over the Company's management and policies. The Plaintiffs paint an unflattering portrait of Shift4's innerworkings and how Isaacman uses this control. The Plaintiffs allege Shift4 is a veritable "boys' club" where nepotism is rampant. Isaacman's older brother, Michael, serves as Shift4's CCO, his father serves on the Board of Directors, his personal pilot was promoted to Executive Vice President of Payments and COO, and his friends serve in roles ranging from CTO to President. This boys' club culture was known throughout the Company. The motivating force behind the purportedly fraudulent conduct underlying this litigation is Shift4's falling share price in 2022. This decline pressured Isaacman from two directions. First, Isaacman has borrowed against his holdings in Shift4. As the share price fell in 2022, Isaacman faced a looming margin call. Shift4's share price fell as low as $29.39 in the summer of 2022 from a high of $101.43 in April of 2021. Second, this pressure was compounded by Isaacman's Variable Prepaid Forward ("VPF") contracts. In March and September of 2021, Isaacman entered into VPF contracts consisting of 6.44 million of Shift4's Class A common stock. Judge Leeson notes that these pressures coincided with several purportedly suspect actions designed to bolster the stock price and relieve the pressure of the margin call and VPF contracts. One of these suspect actions concerns the misclassification of cash outflows associated with capitalized customer acquisition costs, which inflated Shift4's cash flows provided by operating activities. Blue Orca Capital, a short seller, issued a report on April 19, 2023. The report offered a more detailed and more damning picture of Isaacman's margin loan, its strategic buyout initiative, and its "aggressive accounting games." More particularly, the report opined on the quality of some of the third-party distributors acquired, dubbing them "low quality." The report also detailed the extent to which the initiative "flattered" financial metrics, such as adjusted EBITDA. Upon release of the Blue Orca report, Shift4's share price "fell $5.95 per share, or 8.68%, to close at $62.59 per share on April 19, 2023." On Nov. 3, 2023, the Court consolidated the related actions, appointed Robert Baer Lead Plaintiff, and appointed Pomerantz LLP and The Schall Law Firm as Co-Lead Counsel. On Jan. 5, 2024, an Amended Complaint was filed. In Count I, the Plaintiffs assert violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder, against the Defendants. In Count II, the Plaintiffs assert Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder, against all Defendants. In Count III, the Plaintiffs assert violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Isaacman. On Feb. 19, 2024, Shift4 filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. Shift4 argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim arising under Section 10(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5(b) because they have failed to plead: 1) a material misrepresentation; 2) scienter; and/or 3) loss causation. Shift4 also argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish scheme liability under SEC Rule 10b-5(a) or (c). Finally, Shift4 argues that because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish a primary violation of securities law, their Section 20(a) control person claim fails, as well. Accordingly, the Court finds that while the classification of customer acquisition costs satisfies the material misrepresentation element of the Section 10b claim, those statements justifying the strategic buyout initiative do not. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead scienter. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish an element of the claim, the Court dismisses Count I, albeit without prejudice. The Plaintiffs' theory of scheme liability also rests on Isaacman's Dec. 7, 2022 statements that he was "a buyer" despite having not bought Shift4 stock for the six months prior. As noted in the Opinion, scienter is also an element of the scheme-liability claim brought in Count II. Here, Judge Leeson says, the Plaintiffs' inference of scienter with regard to scheme liability claim is premised on the same theory as the 10b-5(b) claim. For the same reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege scienter with respect to the scheme liability claim. Accordingly, Count II is dismissed without prejudice. Judge Leeson opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any primary violation; accordingly, they cannot establish control person liability. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' claims fail on scienter because the chronology of the facts averred undermines the Plaintiffs' theory of motive. The PSLRA's heightened pleading standard requires that the Court consider plausible, nonculpable explanations for the Defendants' conduct. Having made that assessment, the Court finds the competing nonculpable inference far more compelling: Shift4 believed the classification of customer acquisition costs in the financial statement was correct. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ykrmkfa from PacerMonitor.com. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4vmvtxea from PacerMonitor.com. SK DESIGN: Karim Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SK DESIGN CONCEPTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06637 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law, and for declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.simpleshapes.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek 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 individuals. SK Design Concepts, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com SOUTH SHORE MENTAL: Tozzi Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against South Shore Mental Health Center, Inc. The case is styled as Joan Tozzi, individually and on Behalf of All others similarly situated v. South Shore Mental Health Center, Inc. D/B/A Aspire Health Alliance, Case No. 2484CV02307 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Aug. 30, 2024). The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases." South Shore Mental Health Center, Inc. doing business as Aspire Health Alliance -- https://www.aspirehealthalliance.org/ -- is a private, non-profit Community Behavioral Health Center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan T. Jarboe, Esq. BLOCK AND LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St., Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 SPA NAIL: $21K in Attorney's Fees and Costs Awarded in Li Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Anne M. Nardacci of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs in the lawsuit styled WEIDONG LI, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPA NAIL 9, INC., d/b/a Spa Nail 9, DI YANG, a/k/a Peter Yang, AMY YANG, a/k/a Cai Qin Wang, and ANDY DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-AMN-CFH (N.D.N.Y.). Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), for $133,172.33 in attorney's fees and $5,561.10 in costs for his attorneys, Troy Law. The Defendants oppose the Motion. The Court held a five-day jury trial in this matter from April 29 through May 3, 2024, at the conclusion of which the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff Weidong Li against Defendants Spa Nail 9, Inc., d/b/a Spa Nail 9, and Di Yang, a/k/a Peter Yang ("Defendant Yang"), finding that the Defendants had failed to pay the Plaintiff adequate overtime wages, and that they failed to provide him with an adequate wage notice or pay statements in violation of the NYLL. The jury also found that Defendant Amy Yang, a/k/a Amy Wang or Cai Qin Wang ("Defendant Wang"), was not the Plaintiff's employer as required for a finding of liability under the FLSA or NYLL, and that the Defendants had not failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum wage or spread of hours pay. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $3,874.50 in overtime damages, $4,800 in wage notice damages, and $5,000 in pay statement damages. Following the completion of trial, the Court found that the Defendants had not met their burden to show good faith to avoid liquidated damages and that the Plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest under the NYLL, for a total Plaintiff's judgment of $19,913.22. In the Motion, the Plaintiff seeks $133,172.33 in attorney's fees and $5,561.10 in costs, for a total attorney recovery of $138,733.43. To reach these sums, the Plaintiff is requesting a regular hourly rate of $650 for Troy Law managing attorney John Troy ("Mr. Troy"), $400 per hour for managing associate Aaron Schweitzer, $250 per hour for associate Tiffany Troy ("Ms. Troy"), and $200 per hour for managing clerk Preethi Kilaru. At these rates, the Plaintiff requests compensation for 105.88 hours worked by Mr. Troy, 105.28 hours worked by Mr. Schweitzer, 35.51 hours worked by Ms. Troy, and 32.56 hours worked by Ms. Kilaru. Additionally, the Plaintiff requests attorney compensation for 15.33 hours Mr. Troy spent travelling at a reduced rate of $300 per hour, and 11.25 hours Mr. Schweitzer spent travelling at a reduced rate of $200 per hour. Judge Nardacci notes that several courts in this Circuit have noted that Troy Law's tarnished history compels the Court to scrutinize its fee applications in this or any other case with special care. It also makes more egregious any repetition of the same criticism that Troy Law has received in other cases, including Panora v. Deenora Corp., No. 19-cv-7267 (BMC), 2021 WL 5712119, at *5-6 & n.3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2021). Judge Nardacci points out that the Plaintiff's fee request in this case for work done by Troy Law is deserving of many of the same criticisms Troy Law has received in other cases. Although not addressed in the Plaintiff's request, Judge Nardacci observes that it appears that the Plaintiff's attorneys are seeking fees at rates commensurate with those awarded to them for work in other districts, in particular the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, and state courts in those districts. The Plaintiff's attorneys have failed to make a particularized showing that no in-district counsel possessed comparable expertise, and as other courts in this District have observed, even if there were no experienced in-district attorneys fluent in Chinese, such attorneys could have hired interpreters and perhaps produced the same result, Judge Nardacci says. The Plaintiff's counsel have failed to meet their burden to show otherwise. The reasonableness of the rates requested by the Plaintiff's attorneys has been the topic of innumerable other decisions by courts in this Circuit, Judge Nardacci opines. Consistent with the analysis in those cases and the prevailing reasonable rates for experienced wage and hour attorneys in this District, the Court will award fee rates as follows: $300 per hour for Mr. Troy's hours worked; $150 per hour for Mr. Troy's travel time; $200 per hour for Mr. Schweitzer's hours worked; $100 per hour for Mr. Schweitzer's travel time; $125 per hour for Ms. Troy's hours worked on legal tasks and $80 for all others; and $80 per hour for Ms. Kilaru's hours worked. Judge Nardacci finds certain items on the Plaintiff's timekeeper sheets are not appropriately compensated in this matter. For example, the Plaintiff requests compensation for 0.5 hours by Mr. Troy at his $650 hourly rate for drafting a letter in response to Southern District of New York District Judge Analisa Torres's "Order to Show Cause and File" on July 9, 2019. However, the reason that the Plaintiff's attorneys had to respond to such an order was that his attorneys improperly filed the Complaint in the Southern District of New York, which is a mistake that should not result in additional compensation to them. Accordingly, the Court will reduce Mr. Troy's hours by this amount before applying the discount described here. Judge Nardacci also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiff requests compensation for hours billed by Mr. Troy at his $650 hourly rate for work that an attorney should not be doing, let alone a senior attorney, and accordingly, the Court will reduce Mr. Troy's hours by this amount before applying discount. The Plaintiff also requests compensation for work on motions that were never submitted to the Court. Having extracted several inappropriate requests for compensation, the Court considers the appropriate discount to apply to the remaining hours requested in light of the course and outcome of the litigation. Judge Nardacci explains that this litigation is properly characterized as relatively straightforward, with minimal motion practice, and the Plaintiff's attorneys' conduct has been marred by questionable descriptions of their work, questionable uses of time, questionable attention to the form and substance of filings submitted to the Court, failure to comply with Court orders, and relatively minimal success in the litigation by any measure. Additionally, Judge Nardacci notes, this action was initially brought as a putative class and collective action pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL, and the Plaintiff's attorneys maintained those allegations in the Amended Complaint. Despite this fact, the Plaintiff's attorneys never brought a motion for class or collective certification, and instead the case proceeded to trial as an individual action on behalf of the Plaintiff. Judge Nardacci also observes, among other things, that it appears that the Plaintiff's attorneys disregarded their representation to the Court that they would attempt to settle the Plaintiff's claims because they were primarily concerned with recovering their own fees. Finally, as to the most important factor the Court must consider in resolving the Motion, Judge Nardacci points out that the Plaintiff's attorneys achieved only a relative level of success for the Plaintiff, particularly when considered with respect to the abandoned class and collective claims and settlement offers by the Defendants. Since the Plaintiff indicates that Troy Law is entitled to one-third of his judgment in compensation for their work on his case, the Court will deduct the difference of $6,637.74 from the final fee award for the instant Motion. The Court finds that in light of the described conduct of the Plaintiff's attorneys throughout this litigation, the majority of the time requested by the Plaintiff's counsel is unreasonable. Furthermore, the many court decisions in this Circuit criticizing the Plaintiff's attorneys for their conduct in litigation generally, and for the amount of their fee requests specifically, indicates that such strongly worded decisions have largely fallen on deaf ears, Judge Nardacci points out. As a result, the Court will impose a blanket reduction in the hours requested by the Plaintiff, after adjustments of 60 percent. This results in a reasonable fee award to the Plaintiff's attorneys of $22,602.52. In conclusion, the Court notes that, as opposed to the amount of fees requested, this fee award is more in line with Troy Law's recovery in another case in this District in which it represented the same Plaintiff and achieved a marginally higher recovery for the Plaintiff's injuries (Weidong Li v. Ichiban Mei Rong Li Inc., No. 1:16-CV-0863 (DEP), 2017 WL 1750374, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. May 4, 2017). The outcome for Mr. Li in this case, $13,275.48, is thus, similar to, although lower than, the prior case and should not result in a windfall for Troy Law, which a higher fee award would represent, Judge Nardacci says. The Motion also seeks costs of $5,561.10 in reimbursement for the Court filing fees, as well as expenses incurred for case filing, research, postage, process servers, transcript, the Plaintiffs' transportation and accommodation relevant to the case, and hiring a Spanish interpreter for trial. Although the Defendants do not take specific issue with this portion of the Plaintiff's Motion, the Court nonetheless makes a careful examination of Troy Law's submission. In doing so, the Court has identified one entry that appears duplicative and is otherwise unsupported by the Plaintiff's request: there are two entries for Dec. 11, 2023 translation/interpretation costs plus parking, one entry seeking $180 and the other seeking $214.13. Because the Plaintiff's submission supports the latter entry and amount, the Court will strike the request for $180. Although many of the remaining requests are unsupported by the Motion and attachments thereto, including several hotel nights during trial and several invoices for interpreter services, the Court does not find such amounts to be unreasonable and will award the remaining costs requested, for a total of $5,381.10. Accordingly, the Court orders that the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs is granted in part to the extent that the Plaintiff is entitled to an additional $15,963.16 in attorney's fees and $5,381.10 in costs and denied in all other respects. The Court further orders that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum-Decision and Order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s38cjv2 from PacerMonitor.com. JOHN TROY -- johntroy@troypllc.com -- AARON B. SCHWEITZER -- troylaw@troypllc.com -- TIFFANY TROY -- tiffanytroy@troypllc.com -- TROY LAW, PLLC, in Flushing, NY 11355, Attorneys for the Plaintiff. KELLY A. MAGNUSON -- Kelly.Magnuson@1800law1010.com -- HARDING MAZZOTTI, LLP, in Albany, NY 12212-5141, Attorneys for Defendants Spa Nail 9, Inc., Di Yang, and Amy Yang. SPECIALIZED LOAN: Proposed Discovery Plans in Layton Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as THOMAS R. LAYTON, an individual, Plaintiff, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company d/b/a SLS, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01225-JAD-EJY (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued an order ruling on the competing discovery plans and scheduling orders filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks a discovery period of approximately six months. The Defendant seeks to close discovery on September 20, 2024, right after Plaintiff takes the deposition of Defendant's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) representative. The case originally proceeded as a putative class action. It is now proceeding as a single plaintiff case. Plaintiff states he must have time after the corporate representative deposition to conduct additional discovery if needed. The Court finds this request reasonable. However, it finds Plaintiff's apparent desire to depose individual employees who may have interacted with his account many years ago not as reasonable. Accordingly, Judge Youchah: (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order; (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order; (iii) ordered that the discovery will remain open through November 29, 2024. Given the amount of discovery that has occurred before the date of the Order, no extension of discovery will be granted absent a demonstration of extraordinary unforeseen circumstances; (iv) ordered that the Plaintiff may propound written discovery after the deposition of the Defendant's corporate representative. However, the Plaintiff may not set the depositions of individual employees of Defendant without first meeting and conferring with Defendant's counsel, and then, if no agreement can be reached, contacting the Court by submitting a status report in which he explains why the depositions of individual employees are appropriate; (v) ordered that the deadline to file dispositive motions is January 10, 2025; and (vi) ordered the deadline to file a proposed joint pre-trial order is February 10, 2025. If dispositive motions are pending on February 10, 2025, this date is automatically vacated and advanced to 30 days after the Court rules on dispositive motions. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 12, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kQuIrU ST. CLOUD STATE: Wins Bid for Relief From Judgment in Portz Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Defendants' motion for relief from judgment in the lawsuit titled ALEXIE PORTZ, JILL KEDROWSKI, ABIGAIL KANTOR, MARILIA ROQUE DIVERSI, FERNANDA QUINTINO DOS SANTOS, MARIA HAUER, HALEY BOCK, KAITLYN BABICH, ANNA LINDELL, and KIERSTEN ROHDE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY and MINNESOTA STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-01115-JRT-LIB (D. Minn.). The Plaintiffs brought this class action against Defendants St. Cloud State University ("SCSU") and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities ("MNSCU"), alleging gender discrimination in SCSU's past and present allocation of athletic opportunities, treatment, and benefits for female student-athletes in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 ("Title IX"). The Plaintiffs are female student-athletes, who attend or recently attended SCSU and were members of SCSU's varsity intercollegiate Women's tennis or Women's Nordic skiing teams. The Plaintiffs represent a class certified as "all present, prospective, and future female students at SCSU who are harmed by and want to end SCSU's sex discrimination in: (1) the allocation of athletic participation opportunities and (3) the allocation of benefits provided to varsity athletes." SCSU is a university in the MNSCU system. After a bench trial, the Court found that SCSU was violating Title IX and issued a permanent injunction requiring SCSU to comply with the statute on a program-wide basis. Following an appeal and partial reversal of the injunction by the Eighth Circuit, the parties moved to dissolve or modify the injunction. The Court dissolved the portion of the permanent injunction relating to athletic participation opportunities but modified the remaining portion relating to treatment and benefits. The Defendants now move the Court to dissolve the remaining part of the permanent injunction relating to the equitable allocation of athletic-related treatment and benefits. Because the Court finds that SCSU is now in compliance with Title IX, it grants the Defendants' Motion for Relief and dissolves the injunction. Reviewing the data, the Court finds that SCSU's travel practices between the Men's and Women's teams comply with Title IX. First, the Men's and Women's teams took an equitable number of trips. In fact, the Women's teams traveled 36 more times than the Men's teams. Second, the Men's and Women's teams traveled to comparable places--generally to schools in Minnesota and the surrounding states. Third, the Men's and Women's teams took comparable modes of transportation. Fourth, the hotel arrangements were comparable between the Men's and Women's teams. And fifth, the number of student-athletes assigned per room was equitable. In addition to the travel form, SCSU started collecting receipts for per diem expenses to ensure compliance with SCSU's new Athletics Team Travel Policy ("Policy"), which the Court agrees demonstrates equity between the Men's and Women's teams. Finally, SCSU represented that SCSU paid for almost all teams' travels, except for the Men's baseball team in Spring 2023, which traveled twice by bus through its foundation funds. In sum, Judge Tunheim says, SCSU has provided evidence of compliance with Title IX in its provision of athletic-related treatment and benefits on an ongoing basis. Despite the Plaintiffs' contention that additional monitorship is necessary to ensure compliance, the Court finds that continued monitorship is unnecessary because the injunction does not require SCSU to set up procedures for monitoring compliance. In addition, as Title IX remains the law, the Court presumes that SCSU, like any law-abiding entity, will comply with the law in the future. SCSU has provided an academic years' worth of data on its travel and per diem policies and practices. The Court concludes this data demonstrate that the university treats male and female student-athletes equitably. Accordingly, because SCSU's legal violation of Title IX's treatment and benefits requirement has been remedied, Judge Tunheim holds that there is no need to maintain the permanent injunction. Accordingly, the Court dissolves the permanent injunction. The Plaintiffs urge the Court to maintain the injunction because SCSU does not currently provide equitable competitive facilities or equitable athletic participation opportunities. Judge Tunheim finds that SCSU has demonstrated that it is in full compliance with Title IX. Therefore, the Court will dissolve the permanent injunction, thus ending the Court's jurisdiction over this matter. The Court expects SCSU to provide fully equitable opportunities and facilities to its Women athletes going forward and, importantly, to be fully compliant with Title IX. Based on the foregoing and all the files, records, and proceedings therein, the Court: 1. grants the Defendants' Motion for Relief from Judgment; and 2. dissolves the permanent injunction. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4xmuaw3j from PacerMonitor.com. Sharon L. Van Dyck, VAN DYCK LAW FIRM, PLLC, in Saint Louis Park, MN 55416; Donald Chance Mark, Jr. -- donald.mark@fmjlaw.com -- Jamie Pahl Briones -- jamie.briones@fmjlaw.com -- FAFINSKI MARK & JOHNSON, P.A., in Eden Prairie, MN 55344, for the Plaintiffs. Elizabeth C. Kramer -- liz.kramer@ag.state.mn.us -- Joseph D. Weiner -- joseph.weiner@ag.state.mn.us -- MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, in Saint Paul, MN 55101, for the Defendants. SUPER MICRO: Averza Sues Over False and Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Averza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., CHARLES LIANG, and DAVID E. WEIGAND, Case No. 5:24-cv-06147-EJD (N.D. Cal., Aug. 30, 2024), is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired SMCI securities between August 10, 2021 to August 26, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class") due to materially false and misleading statements. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning SMCI's financial results for the fiscal years 2021 through 2024. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, reports of continued significant growth with increasing financial success year after year, a healthy relationship with its related parties, and was in compliance with United States export restrictions. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of SMCI's accounting; notably, that it was subject to consistent overreporting of sales and underreporting of expenses, that it had re-hired multiple executives who departed in the wake of the Company's prior accounting scandal, that the Company has a closer relationship to its related parties than disclosed, that SMCI had more related parties than it had disclosed, and that the Company had not ceased exporting products to areas restricted by the United States government as a result of the Russia-Ukraine war, risking government sanction. August 27, 2024, Hindenburg Research unveiled a research report concerning SMCI. The research report detailed several allegations against the Company, including that Hindenburg "found glaring accounting red flags, evidence of undisclosed related party transactions, sanctions and control failures, and customer issues." Investors and analysts reacted immediately to these revelations. The price of SMCI's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $562.51 per share on August 26, 2024, SMCI's stock price fell to $443.49 per share on August 28, 2024, a decline of about 21.16% in the span of only two days, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased SMCI common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. SMCI is an international company that develops, manufactures, and provides server and storage systems for various markets, including data centers, cloud computing, AI, 5G, and edge computing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton (SBN 316506) LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 373-1671 Email: aapton@zlk.com TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit Over COVID Tes ------------------------------------------------------------------- Talis Biomedical Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2024, that it is facing a consolidated class action lawsuit asserting claims for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all defendants and Section 15 of the Securities Act against the individual defendants. On or about January 7, 2022, a certain John Modrak filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., Piper Sandler & Co., and BTIG, LLC, underwriters of its February 2021 initial public offering (IPO), captioned as "Modrak v. Talis Biomedical Corp., et al.", No. 3:22-cv-00105, purportedly on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of our stock that were registered in its initial public offering (IPO). The complaint alleges that its registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with its IPO was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts related to the comparator assay used in its primary study, its emergency use application for its "Talis One" COVID-19 Test System, and associated regulatory approval and commercialization. The complaints seek unspecified damages under the Securities Act of 1933. This has been consolidated with another action and co-lead plaintiffs have been appointed as mandated by the applicable federal securities laws. On July 1, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On January 13, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that the company's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the company's IPO was false and misleading, and omitted to state material adverse facts, related to (1) instrument manufacturing, (2) the reliability and accuracy of the company's Talis One COVID-19 test, and (3) the comparator test used in the company's primary study in support of its EUA application for the Talis One COVID-19 Test System. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other costs. The amended complaint does not assert claims against the above referenced underwriters. On April 28, 2023, the Court denied our motion to dismiss. On February 9, 2024, the Court certified the class and appointed plaintiff Martin Dugan as class representative. Discovery is ongoing. Trial is currently set for February 24, 2025. The consolidated complaint sets forth a second set of claims against the company and certain of its current and former officers based on public statements made after the IPO under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and covers stock acquisitions made between March 30, 2021 and March 15, 2022. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs. Talis Biomedical Corporation is a molecular diagnostic company based in California. TARGET CORPORATION: Mulloy Sues Over Misrepresentation of Product ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tierney Mulloy, and Jamie Larson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 27-CV-24-11811 (Minn. 4th Judicial Ct., Hennepin Cty., Aug. 9, 2024), is brought against Defendant on behalf of all consumers who purchased Up & Up brand sterile adhesive bandages (the "Bandages") for Defendant's misrepresenting and failing to disclose that the Bandages contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), which pose a significant risk to human health. Prior to purchasing the Bandages, the Plaintiff reviewed the Bandage packaging, Including Target's representations on and concerning the Bandages. After reviewing Defendant's representations, the Plaintiff was unaware that the Bandages were contaminated with and contained harmful PFAS. Prior to purchasing the Bandages, the Plaintiff believed that the Bandages were safe and fit for human use, and would protect against germs and other contaminants. Had Defendant disclosed that the Bandages contained PFAS, and the harms that result from PFAS exposure, the Plaintiff would not have purchased the Bandages or, at the very least, would have paid significantly less for them. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's material misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer economic injuries. If Defendant removed PFAS from the Bandages, the Plaintiff would consider purchasing Bandages for household and/or personal use in the future. The Plaintiff purchased a box of Up & Up Flexible Fabric Bandages from a Target store in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells the Bandages nationwide, including in Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca A Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Email: rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Kyle Pozan, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 1165 N. Clark Street, Suite 700 Chicago, 60610 Phone: (312) 470-4333 Email: kjpozan@locklaw.com - and - Daniel O Herrera, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3210 Chicago, 60603 Phone: 312-782-4880 Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com TERRY LAIN MD: Seeks Chapter 11 Bankruptcy ------------------------------------------ Terry Lain MD LLC filed Chapter 11 protection in the Eastern District of Louisiana. According to court filing, the Debtor reports between $1 million and $10 million in debt owed to 1 and 49 creditors. The petition states funds will not be available to unsecured creditors. A meeting of creditors under 11 U.S.C. Section 341(a) is slated for September 17, 2024 at 2:1500 p.m. by Telephone Conference Line: 866-790-6904. Participant Passcode: 3156784. About Terry Lain MD LLC Terry Lain MD LLC is a provider of psychiatric care services. Terry Lain MD LLC sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. E.D. La. Case No. 24-11609) on August 15, 2024. In the petition filed by Terry Lain, M.D., as manager, the Debtor reports estimated assets up to $50,000 and estimated liabilities between $1 million and $10 million. Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Meredith S. Grabill oversees the case. The Debtor is represented by: Darryl T. Landwehr, Esq. LANDWEHR LAW FIRM, LLC 650 Poydras Street Suite 2519 New Orleans LA 70130 Email: dtlandwehr@att.net TOURO COLLEGE: Filing of Amended Yodice Class Complaint Ordered --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's dismissal of the case MARK YODICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- TOURO COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02026 (S.D.N.Y.). The mandate was issued on August 9, 2024. Yodice filed a class-action complaint against Touro on March 9, 2021. The complaint alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims for tuition arising out of Touro's switch to remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic; breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims for fees for activities and services no longer accessible to students during the pandemic; and a violation of New York General Business Law Secs. 349 and 350 arising out of alleged deceptive practices and false advertising. On November 4, 2021, the defendant's motion to dismiss was granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's Fee Claims. Howeever, it vacated dismissal of the plaintiff's Tuition Claims and GBL claim. Accordingly, Judge Cote ordered the parties to file a status letter bby August 23, 2024 and the plaintiff to file an amended complaint by September 6, 2024. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated August 12, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nh1pxL TRANSFORM SR BRANDS: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kalari Jackson Girtley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TRANSFORM SR BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07956 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the ADA. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons. Because the Defendant's website, www.sears.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.sears.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com UBS FINANCIAL: Sweeps Clients' Uninvested Cash Balance, Davitt Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW DAVITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06692 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York General Business Law. The case arises from a bank sweep program implemented by the Defendant which automatically sweeps uninvested cash balances in its customers' accounts and deposits that cash into deposit accounts at one of its Program Banks. UBS, while acting as its customers' fiduciary regarding the program, also determines the interest rates paid to its customers under the program and further decides the amount of compensation to be paid to UBS and/or its affiliates in connection with the program. The Defendant's actions in designing, implementing, and operating the program to benefit itself at the expense of its customers constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties that UBS owes to its customers, says the suit. UBS Financial Services Inc. is a full-service broker-dealer and investment advisor doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq. Alex B. Heller, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: rraghavan@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net aabramowitz@bm.net aheller@bm.net - and - Alan L. Rosca, Esq. Jonathan A. Korte, Esq. ROSCA SCARLATO LLC 2000 Auburn Dr. Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 946-7070 Email: arosca@rscounsel.law jkorte@rscounsel.law - and - Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. 161 Washington Street, Suite 1025 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (216) 946-7070 Email: pscarlato@rscounsel.law UNITED STATES: Teryaeva-Reed's Reconsideration Bid OK'd in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit captioned JULIA TERYAEVA-REED, Plaintiff v. COLETTE S. PETERS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-03910-JSW (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff, a federal prisoner in Miami, Florida, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights case against officials of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration. The Court construes the Plaintiff's motion as a motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because she appears to argue the Court should change its mind in dismissing the case and/or grant leave to amend. Furthermore, the denial of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is construed as a denial of relief under Rule 60(b), Judge White says, citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). The Court finds reconsideration is not warranted under Rule 59(e). The Plaintiff cites no new evidence or intervening change in the law, Judge White notes. Nor has she shown clear error. She argues her claims may proceed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 392-97 (1971), because of there is "statutory authority" for the claims, namely "a court order" from a recent class action brought by then-inmates of the Federal Correctional Institute in Dublin, California ("FCI Dublin"). Judge White explains that a court order is not a statute, and the Plaintiff's arguments that the Defendants have violated a court order in the class action must be made in that case (through class counsel if necessary), not in a new case. The Plaintiff also argues she was subject to sexual discrimination at FCI Miami (the prison to which she was transferred and where she is currently housed), in violation of her rights to due process and equal protection, insofar as male inmates enjoy better conditions than female inmates. It was not clear to the Court in its initial review of the complaint that the Plaintiff was bringing claim for gender discrimination at FCI Miami. In any event, Judge White opines, the proper venue for her to bring claims arising from the conditions of her confinement at FCI Miami is the Southern District of Florida, not this district, because that is where the events giving rise to the claims took place and the responsible officials are located. Accordingly, the dismissal order is amended in part to indicate the claims of sexual discrimination at FCI Miami are dismissed without prejudice to bringing such claims in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Plaintiff also argues her retaliation claim is cognizable because she is a member of the class in the class action against BOP officials arising from the conditions of confinement at FCI Dublin. While prison officials may not retaliate against the Plaintiff for exercising her First Amendment right to access the courts, the Court is aware of no authority that simply being a class member of an ongoing class action, as opposed to filing or litigating a case, is protected by the First Amendment. But even if assuming it is, Judge White points out the Plaintiff alleged no facts that, if true, plausibly indicate the Defendants closed FCI Dublin and transferred her to another prison because she participated in the lawsuit and that doing so did not reasonably advance the legitimate correctional goal of redressing the unconstitutional conditions at the prison, conditions of which the class members, including the Plaintiff, complained. Consequently, Judge White finds the Plaintiff has not shown the Court committed plain error warranting reconsideration in concluding the complaint, when liberally construed, did not state a cognizable retaliation claim or that such a claim could be cured by amendment. Accordingly, the Court rules that the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied in part and granted in part insofar as her claims of sexual discrimination at FCI Dublin are dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 14, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdh6up7u from PacerMonitor.com. WEB EYE: Franks Sues Over Hidden Fees for Corrective Contact Lenses ------------------------------------------------------------------- OREN FRANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEB EYE CARE, INC. and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07482 (C.D. Cal., September 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Business and Professions Code and California Civil Code and for breach of contract and breaches of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising of corrective contact lenses' prices on its website, https://webeyecare.com. According to the complaint, the Defendant advertises low prices to consumers, including the Plaintiff, to lure customers to its website. However, late in the checkout process, only after a consumer has provided all of this information on the website, the Defendant increases the overall purchase price of the transaction, well above its advertised rates. This deceptive practice has unjustly enriched the Defendant by millions of dollars at consumers' expense through years of hidden fees, the suit alleges. Web Eye Care, Inc. is a company that sells online products and services, doing business in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir J. Goldstein, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. 7304 Beverly Boulevard, Suite 212 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (323) 937-0400 Facsimile: (866) 288-9194 Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com WHITTAKER CLARK: Claims vs. Brenntag Belong to Ch.11 Estate ----------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Michael B. Kaplan of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey granted Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. and its affiliates' motion for summary judgement on Counts I and IV of the Adversary Complaint captioned as Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs, v. Brenntag AG, et al., Defendants, Adv. Pro. No. 23-01245 (MBK) (D.N.J.). By the complaint, the Debtors seek a determination that certain claims brought by third parties against non-debtors in outside litigation are property of the Debtors' estates. The Orange County Water District and the Official Committee of Talc Claimants oppose the Debtors' motion. Judge Kaplan concludes that all Successor Liability Claims seek -- in some fashion -- to impute the Debtors' liability to a non-debtor entity. According to the Court, the harms alleged and the factual allegations necessary to establish a Successor Liability Claim -- whether it is based on "mere continuation" theory, "product line exception," or any other legal basis -- are not unique to any one creditor. Given the factual overlaps and identical harms alleged, the Court concludes the Successor Liability Claims are not direct claims under the Emoral test, no matter the theory under which they are pursued. As a result, they are property of the estate under Sec. 541(a)(1) and Sec. 541(a)(7) [by way of Sec. 544(a)(1)], and at this juncture, the Debtors are the appropriate parties to bring these claims, the Court concludes. The Debtors filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy to address and resolve existing and future claims alleging injuries from exposure to products containing talc, asbestos, or chemical compounds processed or distributed by the Debtors or their predecessors in interest. The claims against the Debtors fall into two general categories: (1) claims alleging injuries resulting from exposure to products containing talc, asbestos, or chemical compounds processed or distributed by the Debtors or their predecessors in interest; and (2) environmental litigation claims against the Debtors relating to the production or handling of hazardous materials which allegedly contaminated certain properties. As a result of this litigation, the Debtors are currently defendants in lawsuits across more than 30 different jurisdictions. Much of the litigation also includes claims against Brenntag North America and its related entities which, in 2004, purchased substantially all the Debtors' operating assets, including indemnification rights against certain Debtors. Brenntag also assumed certain non-asbestos and non-environmental liabilities related to the transferred assets. After filing their chapter 11 petition, the Debtors commenced the adversary proceeding to address the Environmental and Asbestos Claims. The Debtors contend that the Tort Claims involve actions against certain non-debtor entities -- like Brenntag -- and seek to establish those entities' liability for Tort Claims on any grounds, including, without limitation, that the entities are successors to, or alter egos of, the Debtors. These are the "Successor Liability Claims." The Debtors submit that the Tort Claims, pursued as part of the Successor Liability Claims litigation, give rise to possible indemnification or contribution claims against the Debtors. By way of the adversary proceeding, the Debtors seek a determination as to whether the Successor Liability Claims are property of the Debtors' estates, to be pursued by estate fiduciaries on behalf of all creditors. The Debtors also ask the Court to determine whether the claims are subject to the automatic stay. In other words, they seek a permanent pause in the litigations that they assert involve estate assets, or so directly impact the estate that they should be protected by the automatic stay. The Debtors filed their Summary Judgment Motion seeking such relief on September 8, 2023 -- one day after the Adversary Complaint was filed. Shortly thereafter, the Court entered a Case Management Order, which limited the Motion to Counts I and IV , and mostly stayed discovery in this Adversary Proceeding pending a determination on the Summary Judgment Motion, which was scheduled for argument on December 5, 2024. With respect to the type of cause of action at issue -- Tort Claims asserted against a third-party non-debtor corporation stemming from the alleged wrongful conduct of a debtor corporation -- the seminal case in the Third Circuit is In re Emoral, Inc., 740 F.3d 875 (3d 2014). In that case, the trustee had settled claims described as "belonging to the estate" with the Debtors' successor, Aaroma Holdings LLC. When plaintiffs filed individual complaints against Aaroma in the state court, Aaroma sought a ruling from the bankruptcy court that those claims, in fact, belonged to the estate and had already been resolved. The court in Emoral, thus, had to decide whether claims by creditors against a non-debtor third-party based on a "mere continuation" theory of successor liability under state law were property of the estate. The Third Circuit observed that the facts giving rise to the cause of action were not specific to the plaintiffs, but common to all creditors. The circuit court additionally noted that successful claims against Aaroma would benefit all creditors. Ultimately, Aaroma had not committed directly any wrongs against the plaintiffs, individually. Instead, its liability arose solely due to its relationship with the actual wrongdoer, the debtor. Accordingly, the Third Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' claims constituted estate property and were properly pursued by the trustee on behalf of all creditors—not the individual plaintiffs. The Emoral decision has been interpreted as establishing a two-prong test. To be estate property: "(1) the claim must be one that both existed at the commencement of the filing and that the trustee could have asserted on his own behalf under applicable state law; and (2) the claim must be a general one, with no particularized injury arising from it." The Court points out while the parties agree that Emoral provides guidance, they disagree as to its scope and application. The Debtors assert that, under Emoral, the Successor Liability Claims are property of the bankruptcy estate and, summary judgment is appropriate as to Counts I and IV of the Complaint. The Debtors contend that all the potential Successor Liability Claims are general to the bankruptcy estate because such theories of liability are rooted in the corporate and contractual relationship between the Debtor and certain non-debtor third parties, and thus do not depend upon any facts that are unique to any particular Tort Claimant or creditor. "Successor Liability Claims -- whether premised on a theory of mere continuation, de facto merger, product line, alter ego, or any other theory of indirect liability -- cannot be 'personal' to Tort Claimants because they do not seek to redress injury that such claimants can trace directly to Brenntag . . . ." The Committee, on the other hand, argues that the Debtors "mischaracterize" the ruling in Emoral, and suggest that its holding "is limited to 'mere continuation' claims" under New Jersey law. According to the Committee, the Debtors wrongly seek to expand the Third Circuit's holding in Emoral to the "product line exception" to successor liability -- something that was not addressed in Emoral. In the Committee's view, the Successor Liability Claims fail Emoral's two-prong test: 1. The Committee submits that a product line claim "cannot be asserted by a corporation against its own successor" so it did not exist under state law at the time of the filing. Specifically, the Committee contends the Debtors are precluded by California law from bringing successor liability claims against Brenntag. Because the Debtors could not assert these claims under applicable state law, the Committee reasons the California Claims fail the first prong under Emoral. 2. The Committee asserts that a product line claim is particularized -- not general -- and, as a result, these claims likewise fail Emoral's second prong. Thus, the Committee asserts that not all Successor Liability Claims, in fact, are estate property. Finally, the Committee argues the Debtors failed to establish the absence of material facts; therefore, the Debtors are not entitled to summary judgment on this record. Additionally, after inquiry by the Court, the Debtors have supplemented their position by submitting that Sec. 544(a)(1) provides an alternative basis to support the Debtors' efforts to pursue Successor Liability Claims, inasmuch as (i) any hypothetical creditor could bring successor claims based upon traditional theories under applicable state law, and (ii) successor claims premised upon the product line theory "factually overlap with, and seek to remedy the same harm as, all other successor claims." The Court firmly believes the Debtors offer the correct application of Emoral to the present dispute. The Court notes in this case, as in Emoral, the Successor Liability Claims are general to the Debtors' estates by their very nature, as they seek to hold non-debtor entities indirectly liable for the Debtors' tort liabilities, rather than remedy a harm that a Tort Claimant or creditor can directly trace to a non-debtor third party. There can be little dispute that the bulk of the claims fall within the parameters of estate property under Sec. 541(a)(1). The more challenging inquiry, by far, is whether the claims not expressly considered in Emoral can or should be seen through the same lens. In answering the inquiry in the affirmative, the Court takes a step back and observes that the issue at the heart of this dispute is whether the Successor Liability Claims constitute estate property as defined under the Bankruptcy Code. The parties -- like the Third Circuit in Emoral -- focus on whether the Successor Liability Claims are estate property under Sec. 541(a)(1), which broadly defines property of the estate as "all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case." However, property of the estate also encompasses interests defined in Sec. 541(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code, which includes "[a]ny interest in property that the estate acquires after the commencement of the case." In sum, to the extent the Debtors possess the right and capacity to pursue recoveries, post-petition, under other Bankruptcy Code provisions, such as Sec. 544(a), these claims constitute estate assets to be litigated, settled or otherwise resolved by estate fiduciaries, subject to court-approval after notice and a hearing, the Court finds. The Successor Liability Claims at issue in this case include product line claims against Brenntag based on its acquisition of the Debtors' assets. The Committee contends that claims premised on this theory are "undisputedly direct claims under Emoral" because "they (i) are predicated upon individualized harm suffered by each claimant; (ii) cannot be asserted by a corporation against its own successor; and (iii) are specific to Asbestos Claimants and cannot be brought by all of the Debtors' creditors." The Debtors concede that these product line claims "are not held by every (or even practically every) hypothetical creditor who extends credit to the debtor. Rather, they are held only by those creditors who are injured by products manufactured by the debtor." Accordingly, the claims appear particularized or direct and, as such, arguably would belong to the creditors. However, all Successor Liability Claims -- including the product line exception claims -- seek, at their core, to hold a non-debtor entity liable for the Debtors' tort liabilities. The harms alleged cannot be traced directly to Brenntag or any other non-debtor third party -- no matter the theory of liability utilized. And although the product line claims are pleaded in a manner that renders them unique to only those plaintiffs who were injured by the product at issue, they are premised on the same set of facts as any other theory of successor liability asserted. According to the Court, in this respect, they are consistent with all successor liability claims in that a target successor's liability is not grounded upon the underlying injury and the predecessor's activities which created the harm, but rather the subsequent acquisition of assets by the successor and its ensuing operations. In this case, the product line claims are bottomed on the fact that a successor continued to manufacture Debtors' product line. The harms alleged in the product line claims are, thus, the same harms alleged in the Successor Liability Claims premised on other theories of liability: all allege that Debtors' product caused injuries. Significantly, the facts underlying these claims are available to all creditors. In sum, all Successor Liability Claims seek -- in some fashion -- to impute Debtors' liability to a non-debtor entity, the Court states. According to the Court, the harms alleged and the factual allegations necessary to establish a Successor Liability Claim -- whether it is based on "mere continuation" theory, "product line exception," or any other legal basis -- are not unique to any one creditor. Given the factual overlaps and identical harms alleged, the Court concludes that the Successor Liability Claims are not direct claims under the Emoral test, no matter the theory under which they are pursued. As a result, they are property of the estate under Sec. 541(a)(1) and Sec. 541(a)(7) [by way of Sec. 544(a)(1)], and at this juncture, the Debtors are the appropriate parties to bring these claims, the Court concludes. Accordingly, Debtors are entitled to summary judgment on Counts I and IV of the Complaint, the Court holds. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CiG4Cg Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. and affiliates, Brilliant National Services Inc., Soco West Inc. and L.A. Terminals Inc., were engaged in nonmetallic mineral mining and quarrying. The Debtors sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D.N.J. Lead Case No. 23-13575) on April 26, 2023. The Debtors estimated $100 million to $500 million in assets against $1 billion to $10 billion in liabilities as of the bankruptcy filing. XZY INC: Visually Impaired Can't Access Online Store, Gaspa Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA GASPA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XZY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-08944 (D.N.J., September 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.justourshoes.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek 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 individuals. XZY, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com YOUNG CONSULTING: Xavier Balks at Compromised Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL XAVIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03961-TWT (N.D. Ga., September 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of confidence, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its network systems following a data breach that occurred between April 10, 2024, and April 13, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Young Consulting, LLC is a provider of integrated software solutions based in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Herman, Esq. Candace N. Smith, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 3424 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 504-6555 Email: jherman@hermanjones.com csmith@hermanjones.com - and - Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: cmaccarone@zlk.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 ***