/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240920.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, September 20, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 190
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Borden Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Brasko Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Brotherton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Cooper Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Decamilla Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Harty Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
808 LEX: Has Until Oct. 3 to Obtain New Counsel in Tenezaca Suit
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Decertify Class in Hamm Suit Tossed
ACCORDIA LIFE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Schmidt Due March 2, 2025
ACCURATE COURIER: Faces Selaya Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal.
ACTELION PHARMA: Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid
ALLY FINANCIAL: Hamilton Sues Over Compromised Customers' Info
ALLY FINANCIAL: Hamilton Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
AMERICAN CLINICAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
AMERICAN HONDA: Burgos Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 26, 2025
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Court Certifies Class in Midkiff Labor Suit
ATLANTIC GENERAL: Class Settlement in Rentschler Gets Final Nod
AUSTIN FITNESS: Farias Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Court Reopens Valentine Suit
AYA HEALTHCARE: O'Dell Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Collective
BAKER TILLY US: Negrones Suit Removed to N.D. California
BALDOR SPECIALTY: Settlement Deal in Jimenez Gets Final Nod
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks to Seal Docs in Unemployment Benefits Suit
BENGAL TIGER: De Jesus Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
BMW OF NORTH: Parties Must Submit Scheduling Order
BRISTOW US: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Mosley Class Suit
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Delayed Flight Claims Denied Class Suit Treatment
BROOKS SPORTS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BUREAU OF PRISONS: Love Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BUSSIN SNACKS: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CALIFORNIA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 20, 2025
CAMPBELL SOUP: Powell Sues Over Worker Misclassification
CANADA: Class Suit to Benefit Patients Hospitalized Involuntarily
CAPSTONE GREEN: Continues to Defend Estrada Labor Class Suit
CAPSTONE GREEN: Continues to Defend Spitzer Securities Class Suit
CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Class Cert Scheduling Order Deadline Vacated
CARLE FOUNDATION: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Osborn
CARLOTZ INC: Opposition to Class Certification Due Jan. 31, 2025
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Zimmerman Seeks to Certify Class
CENTER FOR COMPLETE: Flores Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
CENTRAL BANK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rutherford Suit Due Nov. 1
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Class Cert Discovery in Deaver Suit Due Dec. 1
CHAMPION HOME: Ceja Must File Class Certification Bid by Oct. 4
CHEESEBOARDER LLC: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CLARENCE CORRECTIONAL: Faces False Imprisonment Class Action
CLEARLY HOLDINGS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Blakely
COBHAM ADVANCED: Class Settlement in Wightman Suit Gets Final Nod
CORSAIR GAMING: All Class Cert-Related Bids Terminated as Moot
COSMED GROUP INC: Motley Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
CREDIT SUISSE: Metzler Settlement Class Gets Certification
CREDIT SUISSE: Settlement Class in FTC Suit Gets Certification
CRYSTAL WINDOW: Loses Partial Bid to Dismiss Reyes Suit
DAILY SALE: Cano Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
DELTA DENTAL: Cavallaro-Kearins Sues Over Breach of Data Privacy
DEXCOM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 21
DIALYSIS CARE: Converse Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Misleads Investors in Japan, Class Suit Says
EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: Murray Bid to Certify Class Moot
EIDP INC: Filing for Class Cert in Manning Bid Due Feb. 27, 2026
ELLY'S PHOENIX: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Smith Suit Alleges
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Bid to Seal Provisionally Sealed Exhibits OK'd
EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jackson-Jones' Bid for Class Certification OK'd
EXICURE INC: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action Lawsuit
EXIT REALTY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 15, 2025
F&E AIRCRAFT: Maldonado Suit Removed to C.D. California
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Plaintiffs' SAC
FLORIDA AGENCY: Class Settlement in Meza Suit Gets Final Nod
FOCUS DC: Harris Seeks to Stay Class Certification Bid Deadline
FORD MOTOR: Martin Must File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 21, 2025
GARAGE CARS: Consumer Class in Barrett Suit Gets Certification
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for Entry of Final Judgment Tossed
GEO GROUP: Class Cert Hearing in Gonzalez Continued to Nov. 18
GITHUB INC: Class Fact Discovery Cut-Off Extended to March 27, 2025
GKN DRIVELINE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
GRID ONE: Ruffner et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches
GULLY TRANSPORTATION: Seals Seeks to Certify Class Action
GUNNAR OPTIKS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged BIPA Violations
HEARST TELEVISION: Therrien Seeks to Impound Exhibits
HEARST TV: Therrien Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
HILLSIDE CAR: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J.
HSBC BANK: Must File Opposition to Class Cert Bid by Oct. 15
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Oct. 9 Class Cert Filing Extension Sought
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Oct. 9
INTERNATIONAL STAR: Sanchez Seeks More Time to Complete Discovery
JENNIFER COZBY: Hurdsman Files Suit in N.D. Texas
JEREMY DEWITTE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in US Suit
JOBBLE INC: Hughes Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
JOHN CHRISTNER: Stokes Suit Removed to C.D. California
KELLY SERVICES: Crowe Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KIRIN TRANSPORTATION: Dispositive Bid Practice Due Oct. 6
L&R DISTRIBUTORS: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Hearing Nixed
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Court Narrows Claims in Stephens Suit
LAHAINA WILDFIRE: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Settlement Class
LENDUS LLC: Greist Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
LEXVID SERVICES: Harlos Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Identities
LIFE EXTENSION.COM: Blind Can't Access Website, Herrera Claims
MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL: Hussein Suit Removed to N.D. California
MEDIC AMBULANCE: Wallace Suit Removed to E.D. California
MEDICAL COLLEGE: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
MEDSTAR HEALTH: Memo on Final approval of Class Settlement Entered
MEDSTAR HEALTH: Settlement Class in Reed Suit Gets Certification
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Wadeea Suit Removed to C.D. California
MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC: Arraf Sues Over Violation of Voting Rights
MIGHTY LUCKY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Igartua Alleges
MKS INSTRUMENTS: Valero Suit Removed to C.D. California
MONEY SOURCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Date Revised to Jan. 20, 2025
MONTE NIDO & AFFILIATES: Suit Filed in N.D. California
MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Court Stays Costello Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Robinson Seeks Rightful Share of Profits
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Tosses Hughes' Bid to Stay Proceedings
NATIONAL GRID: Parties Ask Court to Adopt Proposed Schedule
NBI INC: Harper Sues Over Privacy Protection Act Breach
NEW ERA: Zarate Must File Class Certification Bid by Nov. 4
NUK USA: Kouyate Sues Over Pacifiers' "100% Sustainable" Claims
OFFICE DEPOT: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ON INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Sumlin Suit Claims
OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Briefing on Dismissal Bid Ongoing
PACIFICORP: McGuire Suit Removed to D. Oregon
PALL CORPORATION: Adams Files FLSA Suit in D. Connecticut
PARAMOUNT EXCLUSIVE: Deguchi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Court Consolidates Securities Suits
PENNEY OPCO: Arguelles Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
PENNEY OPCO: JCPenney's Retail Discounts "False," Jones Suit Says
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Bid to Dismiss & Compel Arbitration Tossed
PERCEPTA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Suit Alleges
PETER HYDE: Civil Standing Order Entered in Dundas Class Action
PLURALSIGHT INC: $20-Mil. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Court OK
PNC BANK: Acampora Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PORT IMPERIAL: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Mayors Suit Alleges
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: North Seeks to Certify Class Action
PRESTAMOS CDFI: Marshall Seeks to Certify Two Classes
PROGRESO HONDURAS: Guardado Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
PROTECH ELECTRONICS: Roberts Suit Removed to C.D. California
RENAL TREATMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Zito Due May 21, 2025
RICHLAND COUNTY, SC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
RIVERSIDE RESORT: Archambault Sues Over Data Breach
RUSSELECTRIC INC: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert. Opposition
SAMPSON BLADEN: Gbete Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action
SENTRY SELF-STORAGE: Kuchumova Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
SHEVAUN HARRIS: Court Dismisses Pineda Class Action
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Class Cert Responses Due Sept. 24
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Sept. 24 Opposition to Class Cert Bid Sought
SKY CLIMBER: Proposed Class Certification Schedule Set for Sept. 20
SKYLER ZHANG: Conditional Collective Cert Bid Due Sept. 30
SLEEPYHEAD INC: Ortiz Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
SNOWFLAKE INC: Madden Files Suit in D. Montana
SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Klasse Class Cert Bid Modified to Feb. 14, 2025
SOMNIA INC: Class Settlement in Chabak Suit Gets Initial Nod
SOUTHCOAST HEALTH: Lockette Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia
SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Graham Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia
SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 25, 2025
SOUTHWEST ANSWERING: Vleet Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SPRING VALLEY: Faces Stubbins Suit Over Time Rounding Policy
STARKIST CO: Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Nov. 22
STERLING JEWELERS: Walkup Sues Over ADA & Human Rights Violations
STREAMLABS LLC: Class Settlement in Leventhal Suit Gets Initial Nod
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Parties Seek Permanent Sealing of Certain Docs
SUPER MICRO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 29
SUSHI KATSUEI: Must Request Extension to File Opposition Materials
SWIFT PORK: Vail Suit Seeks to Certify Class
TAPESTRY INC: Sept. 30 Reset for Class Cert Bid Filing Sought
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Deal in De Schutter Gets Final Nod
TEAM IMPORTS LLC: Rizza Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct.
TEXAS TECH: Class Discovery in Stewart Due Jan. 7, 2025
TIMBER CREEK PLAZA: Cheli Sues Over Discriminative Property
TOM VILSACK: Initial Disclosures in Bennett Suit Due Sept. 20
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Class Cert Responses Due Sept. 30 in Lovejoy
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Class Settlement in Rand Suit Wins Initial Nod
TRC STAFFING: Court Suspends Class Certification Deadline
TURMAN COMMERCIAL: Tirado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
U.S. PROTECTION: Ropp Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Security Guards
UIPATH INC: Court Consolidates Brunozzi Action with Steiner Suit
UNIQLO USA: Tao Suit Removed to S.D. New York
UNITED NETWORK: White Sues Over Data Breach
UNITED STATES: Burton Seeks to Certify Two Florida Inmate Classes
UNITED STATES: Mathis Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
UNITED STATES: Parolees Entitled to Preliminary Injunction
UNIVERSITY MECHANICAL: Allmaras Suit Removed to S.D. California
USAA FEDERAL: Settlement Deal in Bulls Class Suit Gets Initial Nod
VISION PATH: Filing of Class Cert Bid Amended to March 7, 2025
VITOL INC: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Initial Nod
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Ruling on Class Cert Bid Pending in 6th Cir.
WESTERN CONFERENCE: Class Cert Discovery-Related Bids Due Sept. 20
WESTERN EXPRESS: Lasater Suit Removed to C.D. California
WESTERN REFINING: Bid for Class Cert. Extended to Feb. 10, 2025
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Class Settlement in Nguyen Suit Gets Initial Nod
WHOLE FOODS: Class Cert Hearing in Molock Suit Set for Sept. 20
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Granted in Wyngaard
WORKDAY INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 12, 2025
WORLD AUTOMOTIVE: Alfer Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
YOUNG ADULT: Class Settlement in Lagunas Suit Gets Final Nod
YOUNG CONSULTING: Faces Sweitzer Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Mecocci Says
YOUNG LIVING: O'Shaughnessy Must File Class Cert Reply by Sept. 20
ZANDER GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jones Extended to Sept. 27
ZARBEE'S INC: Dec. 6 Hearing on Class Certification Sought
ZHONG WEN ZHENG: Cheli Sues Over Discriminative Property
[*] Onslaught of Nutrient-Based Claims on Food Labels Continues
Asbestos Litigation
*********
3M COMPANY: Borden Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Borden, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-04995-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 12, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Brasko Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Brasko, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-04990-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 12, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Army.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Brotherton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Brotherton, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD
INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX
CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-04970-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 12,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Army.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Cooper Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Cooper, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-04983-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 12, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Marine.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Decamilla Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Decamilla, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD
INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX
CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-04997-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 12,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Navy.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Harty Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Harty, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; 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.); Case No. 2:24-cv-04948-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 11, 2024), is brought for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic
acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
The Plaintiffs seek relief against Defendants for personal injury
and because their drinking water has been contaminated by PFAS
related to the use of AFFF, a fire-fighting foam containing PFAS
compounds and for direct exposure to AFFF. AFFF is a specialized
substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been
used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to
extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires.
The Defendants manufactured AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF that
contaminated and continues to contaminate the environment, yet no
Defendant included user warnings to protect the environment or
innocent bystanders. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans
exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods
of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates
in the blood and body of exposed individuals.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew,
or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while
presenting significant health risks to humans. When consumed, PFOS
and PFOA have been linked to numerous and serious health issues.
PFOA and PFOS are associated with a variety of illnesses, including
but not limited to, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative
colitis, thyroid disease, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer. The
chemicals are particularly dangerous for pregnant women and young
children. As the manufacturers of AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF,
the Defendants knew or should have known that the inclusion of
Toxic Surfactants in AFFF presented an unreasonable risk to human
health.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
The Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were consuming water
and food contaminated with PFOS and PFOA until the contamination
was disclosed to them by state and federal officials. Through this
action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive
damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages
sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs' water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tayjes Shah, Esq.
THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Phone: 540-672-4224
Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com
808 LEX: Has Until Oct. 3 to Obtain New Counsel in Tenezaca Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfonso Tenezaca et al.,
v. 808 Lex Restaurant, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08545-JGLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke entered an order
granting counsel's motion to withdraw under Local Rule 1.4.
-- The Defendants have until Oct. 3, 2024 to obtain new counsel.
-- The Defendants have until Oct. 17, 2024 to file any opposition
to
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
-- The Plaintiffs' reply to any opposition is due Oct. 24, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=20J9Da at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew Cohen, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP
135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
Woodbury, NY 11797
Telephone: (516) 681-1100
E-mail: mcohen@kaufmandolowich.com
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Decertify Class in Hamm Suit Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY HAMM, ET AL., v.
ACADIA HEALTHCARE CO., INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-01515-SM-DPC
(E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an order denying
the Defendants' motion to decertify.
Having considered the parties' arguments and the operative Fifth
Circuit law, the Court finds once certified under the Swales
framework, after an opportunity to conduct preliminary discovery
and fully brief the issues, there is no justification for a motion
to decertify and to allow such a motion would be a waste of
judicial resources. The Court finds this result was not intended by
the Fifth Circuit.
Accordingly, the Court will deny the Defendants’ motion to
decertify the Plaintiffs' FLSA collective action, which the
Court’s July 2022 Order certified in accordance with Swales.
The Plaintiffs assert two claims as a putative collective action
under Section 216(b) of the FLSA.9 Specifically, Plaintiffs claim
the Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. section 207 by: (1) "failing to
pay overtime compensation for on-duty meal periods," and (2)
"failing to pay overtime compensation for 'off-the-clock' work."
After the preliminary discovery period concluded, the Court issued
its July 2022 Order, granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify and certifying the FLSA collective
action defined as follows:
"All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees directly
involved with patient care, including but not limited to
nurses,
nursing staff, nursing assistants, nurse aides, technicians,
clerks, nonexempt therapists, or other non-exempt employees
with
similar job duties employed at any facility owned/operated by
the
Defendants during the time period three years prior to the
filing
of the original Complaint until resolution of this action (the
"Collective").
The Plaintiff Hamm worked as a nurse at Red River Hospital in
Wichita Falls, Texas, from February 2015 to December 2019, and then
at River Place Behavioral Health in LaPlace, Louisiana from
December 2019 to September 2020.
Acadia Healthcare is an American provider of for-profit behavioral
healthcare services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QfNDyZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
ACCORDIA LIFE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Schmidt Due March 2, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SCHMIDT,
Individually, and on behalf of the Class, v. ACCORDIA LIFE AND
ANNUITY COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation; and DOES 1 through 300,
Inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01923-LL-BJC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Benjamin Cheeks entered an order granting joint motion to
amend scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification
motion filing deadline:
Event Deadline / Date
Deadline for all parties to complete all Jan. 30, 2025
Pre-class certification fact discovery:
Deadline to file any motion for class March 2, 2025
Certification:
Deadline for the parties to designate March 3, 2025
their respective experts in writing:
Deadline to exchange rebuttal experts: March 17, 2025
Deadline for each party to comply with April 16, 2025
the disclosure provisions in Rule
26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure:
Deadline for any party to supplement its April 30, 2025
disclosure regarding contradictory or
rebuttal evidence under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e):
Deadline for all parties to complete all May 29, 2025
expert discovery:
Accordia is an innovative life insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VNYUG0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ACCURATE COURIER: Faces Selaya Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
YARGELINA BEATRIZ RODEZNO SELAYA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCURATE COURIER NCA LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-06408 (N.D. Cal., September 11, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code, and California's
Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime
wages, waiting time penalties, failure to provide rest breaks,
failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and unfair competition.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a medical and
pharmaceutical transportation worker from approximately July 28,
2020, to May 24, 2023.
Accurate Courier NCA LLC is a provider of transportation services
for pharmaceutical and medical equipment, doing business in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Dore, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC
6232 N. Pulaski, Ste. 300
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (773) 415-4898
Email: jdore@justicialaboral.com
ACTELION PHARMA: Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
HEALTH ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS Ltd., Case No.
1:18-cv-03560-GLR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge George Russell, III
entered an order:
-- granting Plaintiff Government Employees Health Association's
Motion to Certify Class;
-- certifying the following class, in accordance with Federal Rule
of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):
"All entities that, for consumption by their members,
employees,
insureds, participants or beneficiaries, purchased, paid and/or
provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of
Tracleer or bosentan, other than for resale, in the Class
States
and territories1 at any time during the period from Dec. 29,
2015,
through and until the anticompetitive effects of Defendants'
challenged conduct cease";
-- appointing the Government Employees as class representative in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a);
-- appointing Sharon K. Robertson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC and Thomas M. Sobol of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP are
as as co-lead class counsel;
-- granting in part and denying in part Government Employees'
motion
to exclude the opinions of James W. Hughes and Sean Nicholson
Related to Class Certification; and
-- granting Government Employees' Motion to Exclude the Opinions
of
James W. Hughes, Ph.D and Sean Nicholson, Ph.D Related to Class
Certification to the extent that the Court will exclude Dr.
Hughes' opinions and testimony opining that rebates and
Medicare
Part D payments negate antitrust injury;
Actelion is a pharmaceuticals and biotechnology company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jht2vm at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLY FINANCIAL: Hamilton Sues Over Compromised Customers' Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC. and ALLY BANK,
Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00131-M (E.D.N.C., September 9, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
customers stored within a vendor's system following a data breach.
The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, the suit says.
Ally Financial Inc. is a financial services firm, with its
headquarters located in Detroit, Michigan.
Ally Bank is a subsidiary of Ally Financial, with its headquarters
located in Sandy, Utah. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Email: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
Isabel C. DeMarco, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
Email: dlietz@milberg.com
ALLY FINANCIAL: Hamilton Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC. and ALLY BANK,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00818 (W.D.N.C., September 10, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
customers stored within a vendor's system following a data breach.
The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Ally Financial Inc. is a financial services firm, with its
headquarters located in Detroit, Michigan.
Ally Bank is a subsidiary of Ally Financial, with its headquarters
located in Sandy, Utah. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Email: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
Isabel C. DeMarco, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
Email: dlietz@milberg.com
AMERICAN CLINICAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Clinical Solutions (ACS) faces a proposed class action
lawsuit over a data breach that reportedly compromised the private
information of its clients' current and former patients earlier
this year.
The 54-page data breach lawsuit says ACS, a provider of drug
testing services to the healthcare industry, reported to the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services around July 24, 2024 that a
"hacking/IT incident" affecting its network server had impacted
approximately 300,000 individuals.
The defendant's report conflicts with an announcement from the
ransomware group RansomHub, which claims it infiltrated ACS's
systems in mid-May 2024 and stole the data of more than 500,000
individuals who had samples tested for prescription and narcotic
drugs, the case relays. The hacker group also demanded ransom
payment by May 25 to prevent the publication of the stolen data,
the complaint shares.
The American Clinical Solutions data breach lawsuit alleges the
compromised information includes patients' names, dates of birth,
genders, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, patient IDs,
doctor's names, the names of clinics that requested the tests,
laboratory results and health insurance information.
According to the case, the incident stemmed from the company's
failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures.
"[The defendant] failed to adequately protect [the plaintiff's] and
class members' private information -- and failed to even encrypt or
redact this highly sensitive information," the suit contends. "This
unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised due to
[the defendant's] negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and
their utter failure to protect its customers' sensitive data."
The complaint says ACS has yet to send data breach notice letters
to victims, who now face a long-lasting and severe risk of identity
theft and fraud due to the exposure of their sensitive
information.
The American Clinical Solutions lawsuit looks to represent anyone
in the United States whose private information was compromised in
the data breach. [GN]
AMERICAN HONDA: Burgos Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 26, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN BURGOS, et al., v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02128-AB-SK
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. entered an order
adopting the following scheduling order:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file Sept. 27, 2024
Opposition to Defendant's
Motion to dismiss:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file Sept. 26, 2025
Motion for class certification
And serve disclosures and reports
-- Defendant's deadline to file Dec. 19, 2025
Opposition to motion for class
Certification and serve expert
Disclosures and reports:
American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2YGBTx at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Court Certifies Class in Midkiff Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINIFRED MIDKIFF, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE
ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00417-HEH (E.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge Henry Hudson entered an order certifying a
class of:
"Any individual who: (1) worked/works in Virginia for Anthem (or
one of its subsidiaries) in the Nurse Medical Management I, II
and/or Senior job title; (2) was/is paid a salary, (3) was/is
treated as exempt from overtime laws, (4) worked/works over
forty
(40) hours during any week, and (5) was/is primarily responsible
for performing medical necessity reviews at any time since July
1,
2021."
The class is certified to bring a claim under Virginia Overtime
Wage Act.
Anthem offers managed healthcare related products and
administrative services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ih7VBX at no extra
charge.[CC]
ATLANTIC GENERAL: Class Settlement in Rentschler Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Rentschler, Cathy
Ehrisman, Heather Byam, and Kathleen Appel, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Atlantic General
Hospital Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01005-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon.
Judge Julie Rubin entered an order granting final approval of the
class action settlement:
-- The Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class:
"All persons in the United States to whom AGH mailed
notification
that their information may have been impacted in the Data
Incident."
-- Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and in recognition of
their
efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class, the Court approves
payments to Class Representatives in the total amount of $1,500
each as a service award for their efforts on behalf of the
Settlement Class.
The Settlement Administrator shall make such payment in
accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
-- The Court affirms the appointment of Milberg Coleman Bryson
Phillips Grossman, PLLC; Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel,
LLP, and Kramon & Graham, P.A as Settlement Class Counsel, and
finds that they have adequately represented the interests of
the
Settlement Class.
-- The Court, after careful review of the fee petition filed by
Settlement Class Counsel, and after applying the appropriate
standards required by relevant case law, hereby grants
Settlement
Class Counsel's application for combined attorneys’ fees and
expenses in the amount of $750,000. Payment shall be made
pursuant
to the terms of the Settlement Agreement
Atlantic provides general and emergency medical care for the
community.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N3jlNi at no extra
charge.[CC]
AUSTIN FITNESS: Farias Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Farias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AUSTIN FITNESS GROUP, LLC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01062
(W.D. Tex., Sept. 10, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's
unsolicited text messaging.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they
have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. 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 behalf of
Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and was a resident of the
Travis County, Texas.
The Defendant is a corporation whose principal office is located in
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Court Reopens Valentine Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL VALENTINE, an
individual, and CRYSTAL VALENTINE, an individual, v. AUTO-OWNERS
INSURANCE, Case No. 2:22-cv-00815-RJS (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge
Robert Shelby entered an order granting in part and denying in part
the Valentines' motion to amend.
Specifically, the court affirms its finding that the damages to the
Valentines' home are not covered because the Valentines and Alpine
Design did not comply with two of the Policy's provisions.
However, the court finds it erred in dismissing the Valentine's
breach of fiduciary duty claim and reverses its grant of summary
judgment on that claim.
The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen the case.
Because Auto-Owners did not carry its burden to demonstrate its
entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, the court erred
in dismissing the Valentines' breach of fiduciary duty claim.
This case arises from Plaintiffs Michael and Crystal Valentine's
discovery of defects in their newly constructed home.
On Feb. 5, 2024, the court entered a Memorandum Decision and Order
granting Auto-Owners' Motion for Summary Judgment and denying the
Valentines' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Auto-Owners provides life, home, car and business insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wT2gL0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
AYA HEALTHCARE: O'Dell Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA O'DELL, HOLLY
ZIMMERMAN, and LAUREN MILLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. AYA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-01151-CAB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Oct. 10,
2024, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be considered, heard,
or decided by the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, will move for
entry of an order:
1. Conditionally certifying the following collective:
"All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Aya
who
(1) worked more than 40 hours in a workweek at any time from
three years prior to Aug. 4, 2022 to the present and (2) who
received a "Meals and Incidentals Stipend," "Housing
Stipend"
(or their equivalents by any other name), and/or Shift
Bonuses
that were not included in their regular rate of pay";
2. Requiring Aya to produce a list of individuals who meet the
collective definition, along with their contact information
and
other information requested in the Motion in Excel format,
within 14 days of an Order granting conditional collective
certification;
3. Approving the form and method of distributing notice as set
forth in Plaintiffs' supporting memorandum of law and
Exhibits A
and B;
4. Setting a 90-day period for opting-in to the action to run
from
the date of the initial mailing of the notice; and
5. Equitably tolling the statute of limitations of all putative
and
existing collective members from Aug. 4, 2022, the date the
Complaint was filed, until the conclusion of the notice
period;
and
6. Otherwise directing Plaintiffs and their counsel to carry out
the notice process consistent with the Motin and this Order.
Aya Healthcare is a healthcare talent software and staffing company
in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X9PQbq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
lindner@hartleyllp.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
K. Ross Merrill, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
merrill@stuevesiegel.com
BAKER TILLY US: Negrones Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Liza M. Negrones, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BAKER TILLY US LLP; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 24CV083063 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Sept. 9, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-06341.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California
Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative
class for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime
wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to permit rest
breaks; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages due
upon separation of employment; and violation of Business and
Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Donald J. Camerson, II, Esq.
Diana C. Manning, Esq.
BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS, P.C.
325 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 301
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Email: djcamerson@bressler.com
dmanning@bressler.com
- and -
Charles M. Gering, Esq.
Anthony D. Pesce, Esq.
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
161 North Clark Street, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 261-6888
Email: cgering@pedersenhoupt.com
apesce@pedersenhoupt.com
BALDOR SPECIALTY: Settlement Deal in Jimenez Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDUARDO ANTONIO JIMENEZ
DEL ROSARIO, JAYSON MERCADO, and TANEISHA LEWIS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, V. BALDOR SPECIALTY
FOODS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03580-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Alvin Hellerstein entered an order granting final approval of the
Settlement Agreement and for purposes of the Settlement Agreement
and this final order and judgment only, finally certifying the
following settlement Class defined as:
"All 13,382 individuals who were given notice by Baldor that
their
PII was potentially compromised in the Data Incident discovered
by
Baldor in Feb. 2023."
Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are:
(1) judge presiding over this action, and members of their
direct
families;
(2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies,
successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its
parents have a controlling interest and their current or
former
officers, directors, and employees; and
(3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid request for
exclusion prior to the Opt-out Deadline.
The court, after careful review of the fee petition filed by the
class Counsel, and after applying the appropriate standards
required by relevant case law, grants class Counsel attorneys' fees
in the amount of $125,000.00. Reasonable costs and expenses of
$3,832.00 are also awarded.
On April 22, 2024, this Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.
On Aug. 21, 2024, the Court held a final approval hearing.
The amended notices were sent to the class.
To fix this clerical error, on July 9, 2024, this Court vacated the
April 22 preliminary approval order, and entered the July 9 amended
preliminary approval order.
Baldor is an importer and distributor of fresh produce and
specialty foods in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VOfZce at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks to Seal Docs in Unemployment Benefits Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California
Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order grant
ing its motion to seal because compelling reasons support sealing
of the identified documents or its portions.
The Defendant has lodged a proposed order separately with the
court.
There are compelling reasons to file under seal each of the
confidential documents, discovery responses and testimony
referenced in Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal (or portions thereof), and
any substantive discussion of those documents contained in
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
Each of those documents and testimony were properly designated as
"Confidential" or "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only"
under the Protective Order entered by this Court because each
pertains to topics that are likely to cause particularized
competitive harm to BANA and which could potentially enable future
fraud, which poses a danger to BANA’s business and the public.
Both are compelling reasons which outweigh the public disclosure
factors, and thus permit sealing of those documents.
Additionally, documents or testimony reflecting BANA’s analyses
of its state prepaid unemployment program operations, including but
not limited to, contractual negotiations with the states, contracts
with call center vendors, card and fraud volumes, and operational
risks and losses could similarly be used by a competitor financial
institution to BANA's competitive disadvantage.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tmwTxu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
James W. Mcgarry, Esq.
Sabrina M. Rose-smith, Esq.
Matthew L. Riffee, Esq.
Thomas M. Hefferon, Esq.
Laura G. Brys, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 570-1000
Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
E-mail: JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
THefferon@goodwinlaw.com
LBrys@goodwinlaw.com
- and -
Yvonne W. Chan, Esq.
JONES DAY
100 High Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 960-3939
Facsimile: (617) 449-6999
E-mail: YChan@jonesday.com
- and -
Janice P. Brown, Esq.
Matthew B. Nazareth, Esq.
MEYERS NAVE
600 B Street, Suite 1650
San Diego, CA 92101
E-mail: jbrown@myersnave.com
mnazareth@myersnave.com
BENGAL TIGER: De Jesus Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cristopher De Jesus, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. BENGAL TIGER UPSTAIRS INC. d/b/a BENGAL TIGER, VINOD
SHARMA, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:24-cv-06836 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
10, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law to recover from the Defendants: unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread of
hours" premium for each day that Plaintiff's work shift exceeded 10
hours, misappropriated tips, liquidated and statutory damages
pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage
Theft Prevention Act, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff was not paid proper minimum wages and overtime
compensation. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their
business with a policy of not paying the New York State minimum
wage to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. The
Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a
policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half), or
the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in direct
violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting
federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a
non-exempt dishwasher, dough maker, food preparer/kitchen worker,
bread maker, porter, busboy, and food runner for the Restaurant.
BENGAL TIGER UPSTAIRS INC., owns and operates an Indian restaurant
doing business as "Bengal Tiger."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 209-3933
Fax: (212) 209-7102
Email: info@jepclaw.com
BMW OF NORTH: Parties Must Submit Scheduling Order
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATLAN, et al., v. BMW OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-09546 (D.N.J., Filed May 22,
2018), the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi entered an order that within
20 days of the Court's decision on class certification, the parties
shall submit a proposed scheduling order for any limited, remaining
discovery that needs to be conducted.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
personal property damage.
BMW of North America, LLC, markets and sells motor vehicles.[CC]
BRISTOW US: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Mosley Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN MOSLEY; STEVEN
TUCKER; GRAYSON YOUNG; and KURT STRANGE, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, v. BRISTOW U.S., LLC and BRISTOW
GROUP, INC. Case No. 2:23-cv-02674-JCZ-EJD (E.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge Jay Zainey entered an amended scheduling order as follows:
Deadline for propounding all written discovery: Oct. 30,
2024
Deadline for submitting witness and Nov. 4, 2024
exhibit lists:
Deadline for the parties to conduct all Dec. 2, 2024
depositions:
Deadline for filing any dispositive motions Dec. 17,
2024
relating to the Railway Labor Act ("RLA")
exemption:
Any opposition memorandum to such motion be Jan. 3, 2025
filed by:
Any reply memorandum to such motion to be Jan. 10,
2025
filed by:
In the event the Court denies Defendant's dispositive motion
regarding the RLA exemption, the Court will contact the parties to
set new dates for the final pretrial conference and trial, along
with a schedule for the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification
of similarly situated employees and/or motion for equitable
tolling.
Bristow U.S. provides aviation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nloIh8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Delayed Flight Claims Denied Class Suit Treatment
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Barker, Mike Hawthorne and Brian Grierson of Pinsent Masons
were commenting after Master Davison struck out a representative
action against British Airways and easyJet.
The action in the case was brought by one passenger, Claire Smyth,
who was affected by a cancelled flight in 2022. Smyth argued that
she should be allowed to act as representative of other passengers
impacted by flight cancellations or delays of three hours or more
during a period spanning more than five and a half years. A rough
assumption made about the total value of the claims was that, if
successful, they would cost the airlines GBP319 million.
Master Davison held, however, that the action brought by Smyth was
not one that could properly be brought as a representative action.
This is because, he determined, it is not one where all members of
the class of claimants Smyth purported to represent share the 'same
interest' in the claim -- as is required for raising representative
actions under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) that apply to civil
court proceedings in England and Wales. In this regard, the judge
said that it was clear from the action Smyth brought "that there
are multiple different claims, all raising their own issues and
requiring 'individualised assessments'".
"Whether represented parties share the same interest is tested by
asking whether there is a 'common issue' (or more than one), the
resolution of which would benefit all the represented parties,"
said Master Davison, finding that no such common issue had been set
out by Smyth's lawyers in this case.
"The practical reality is that the opening class presents numerous,
widely diverging interests requiring individualised determinations.
It does not present the same interest, or anything close," the
judge said.
The judge said this issue could not be remedied, for the purposes
of enabling a representative action to proceed, by allowing Smyth
to make refinements to the class of claimants she wished to
represent.
Even if the action did satisfy the 'same interest' test, Master
Davison said he would still have exercised his discretion to refuse
to allow Smyth's case to proceed as a representative action.
In this respect, the judge cited concerns about Smyth's true
motivations for bringing the action, where she claimed to be
motivated by a desire to secure redress for consumers but for which
she had obtained a High Court order entitling her to 24% of any
compensation recovered from the litigation, the cost of which to
her was being underwritten by her employer. The judge also
identified the fact there are other routes through which airline
passengers might claim compensation for cancelled or delayed
flights -- including by exercising rights they have under UK
consumer law and making use of consumer complaints procedures the
airlines themselves have established.
Grierson said: "The judgment of the High Court highlights that not
all flight delay or cancellation claims are the same. This provides
helpful support and clarity to the airline industry that the court
recognises that flights are cancelled or are delayed for different
reasons, and that liability for compensation needs to be considered
on a flight-by-flight basis. Airlines will also welcome the
assessment of Master Davison that a representative action is
unlikely to meet the 'overriding objective' of dealing with such
cases justly or at proportionate cost, noting the availability of
remedies to passengers through airlines' own complaints procedures
at little or no cost."
Hawthorne said: "Delayed flight compensation is a special case
because the government considered and decided against implementing
an automatic compensation scheme when it gave effect to the EU
regulation which created the right to compensation. The judge
commented that this claim would ' . . . in practical terms be
forcing the airlines to implement the automatic compensation scheme
for which Parliament did not provide'."
"If government policy is a red line for representative actions,
then the next line to test will be claims that interact with
regulatory policy, where the argument would be that where a
regulator has chosen to act the courts should not allow a different
form of mass action to run in parallel," he added.
"Consumer protection is nowadays a statute-based part of the law,
supplemented by regulation, which together represent the current
balance of interests as set by the government. In this context the
courts should be cautious in using their flexible powers to allow
novel claims which do not originate from within the codified law,"
Hawthorne said.
Barker said: "This case highlights some very problematic issues
which arise in the context of the commercial models used to fund
opt-out class actions. A remarkable feature of the case is that the
claimant had obtained an order from a different judge at an earlier
stage which apparently sanctioned her entitlement to 24% of sums
recovered on behalf of the class. The judgment indicates that this
order was obtained without any notice to the defendants and Master
Davidson appears to have had very limited information about the
background circumstances. On its face, this arrangement could have
entitled the claimant to an extraordinary amount of money, in
excess of GBP70 million, had the case proceeded and been
successful."
"Recent judgments have emphasised that the representative action
procedure is intended to be a flexible vehicle and to move with the
times. However, this case illustrates that the representative
action procedure does not have any of the machinery or guardrails
which would be needed in modern opt out class action litigation in
order to ensure that claimants, funders and their legal teams are
not excessively rewarded and that these claims are brought with the
objective of securing redress in relation to genuine legal wrongs
rather than securing a windfall for those involved in bringing the
action," he said. [GN]
BROOKS SPORTS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Brooks Sports Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-0360 (D. Minn.,
Sept. 10, 2024), is brought arising because Defendant's Website
(www.brooksrunning.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is
not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who
have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim
under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action
under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content Defendant makes available to its sighted
Website users.
Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind.
The Defendant offers shoes, clothing, and accessories for sale
including, but not limited to, walking, trail, hiking footwear,
shorts, pants, outerwear, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
BUREAU OF PRISONS: Love Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTAVIOUS LOVE, et al., v.
BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02571-APM (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying a class as to all claims in this action, defined as:
"All individuals who were or will be sentenced by the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia for D.C. code felony offenses
and who are or will be in the custody of the Bureau of
Prisons";
-- certifying Artavious Love and Diamante Butler as class
Representatives; and
-- appointing Plaintiffs' counsel from the Public Defender Service
for the District of Columbia as class counsel.
In compliance with Local Rule 7(m), the Plaintiffs' counsel
conferred with the Defendants' counsel, who oppose this Motion.
Bureau of Prisons is responsible for all federal prisons and
provides for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0It35S at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Megan Yan, Esq.
Safa Ansari-Bayegan, Esq.
Kavya R. Naini, Esq.
Public Defender Service for the
District of Columbia
633 3rd Street N.W.
Washington DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 550-6472
E-mail: myan@pdsdc.org
sansaribayegan@pdsdc.org
knaini@pdsdc.org
BUSSIN SNACKS: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edery Herrera, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. BUSSIN SNACKS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06860
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 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://bussinsnacks.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. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
BUSSIN SNACKS LLC, operates the BussinSnacks online retail store,
as well as the BussinSnacks interactive Website and advertises,
markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: dana@gottlieb.legal
michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
CALIFORNIA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 20, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAMS, TALIB
(MARCELLE), et al., v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-09586-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting stipulated request
to amend scheduling order:
Deadline New Date
Class Cert Expert Disclosures Nov. 1, 2024
Class Cert. Rebuttal Disclosures Nov. 22, 2024
Class Cert expert discovery cut-off Dec. 20, 2024
Dispositive/Daubert Motions Jan. 17, 2025
Dispositive/Daubert Oppo Feb. 14, 2025
Dispositive/Daubert Reply Feb. 28, 2025
Class certification motion due March 20, 2025
Class certification opposition due April 21, 2025
Class certification reply due May 13, 2025
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is the
penal law enforcement agency of the government of California
responsible for the operation of the California state prison and
parole systems.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4bVQBW at no extra
charge.[CC]
CAMPBELL SOUP: Powell Sues Over Worker Misclassification
--------------------------------------------------------
GARY POWELL, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, a New
Jersey Corporation; and SNYDER’S-LANCE, INC., a North Carolina
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12306 (D. Mass.,
September 9, 2024) seeks to redress Defendants’ systemic policy
and practice of misclassifying their Distributor employees as
"independent contractors," resulting in a failure by Defendants to
pay these employees fair and overtime wages mandated by the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage
Law.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Powell, like other
Distributors, has been subjected to and injured by Defendants'
policy and practices of making unlawful deductions from the wages
of Distributors and failing to reimburse ordinary business
expenses.
Headquartered in Camden, NJ, Campbell Soup Company sells snack food
products to retailers throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Greg Blankinship, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One N. Broadway Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3290
E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
- and -
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
Shaun Markley, Esq.
Jordan Belcastro, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASELVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
jbelcastro@nicholaslaw.org
CANADA: Class Suit to Benefit Patients Hospitalized Involuntarily
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Nickerson of Frequency News reports that compensation may
soon be available for those who have been involuntarily
hospitalized for longer than 72 hours.
Melodie Pelletier, a communications agent with Droits-Acces de
l'Outaouais, an organization that advocates for the rights of
people with mental illness, explained that those who have been held
for more than 72 hours may be eligible for compensation from the
provincial government thanks to a class action lawsuit by the group
Action Autonomie. She said that under law P-38, patients can be to
be held involuntarily at a health facility if they are deemed to be
a danger to themselves or others, however, the rules aren't always
followed.
Pelletier said that according to the latest numbers she has access
to, there were 750 involuntary hospitalizations in the Outaouais in
2022 alone, more than two a day. She added that the lawsuit only
covers those who were hospitalized after 2015, and they will know
more about the results of the suit when it is finalized later this
fall. [GN]
CAPSTONE GREEN: Continues to Defend Estrada Labor Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Green Energy Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2023 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2024, that
the Company continues to defend itself from the Estrada labor class
suit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles.
August 19, 2024, a Class Action, pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 382 was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 24STCV21118,
on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other current and former non-exempt
California employees employed by or formerly employed by Defendants
claiming 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
227.3, and unfair competition.
The Court has not ruled to certify the Class.
The Company has not recorded a liability as of December 31, 2023,
as the suit was filed subsequent to the balance sheet date.
The Company intends to fight the claims vigorously.
Capstone Green Energy Holdings, Inc. develops, manufactures,
markets, sells and service microturbine-based technology solutions
based in California.
CAPSTONE GREEN: Continues to Defend Spitzer Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Green Energy Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2023 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2024, that
the Company continues to defend itself from the Spitzer securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.
On October 13, 2023, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned Spitzer v. Flexon, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-08659, naming
certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers
as defendants. The suit alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding, and allegedly inadequate
disclosure surrounding, the Company's business, operations and
prospects and the circumstances leading up to the restatement of
the Company's quarterly and annual financial statements.
The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities
between June 14, 2021 and September 22, 2023 and seeks to recover
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief, including
attorney's fees.
The Company may incur significant legal expenses in defending the
legal matters described above during the pendency of these matters,
and in connection with any other potential legal matters, including
expenses for the potential reimbursement of legal fees of officers
and directors under indemnification obligations. The Company
anticipates these legal fees to not exceed the insurance deductible
of $1.2 million and has not recorded a liability as of December 31,
2023. There were no legal fees incurred as of December 31, 2023.
Capstone Green Energy Holdings, Inc. develops, manufactures,
markets, sells and service microturbine-based technology solutions
based in California.
CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Class Cert Scheduling Order Deadline Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Guinard, et al, v.
Cardinal Financial Company LP, Case No. 3:24-cv-00101 (N.D. Tex.,
Filed Jan. 12, 2024), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered an order:
-- granting the parties' joint motion to stay class certification
scheduling order deadlines; and
-- vacating the Class certification scheduling Order deadlines.
The parties shall confer and propose new deadlines for a class
certification scheduling order within 30 days of either the Court
deciding a motion to dismiss or Defendant filing an answer.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.
Cardinal provides brokerage services.[CC]
CARLE FOUNDATION: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Osborn
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osborn v. The Carle
Foundation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01228-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Carle is a Level I Trauma Center and offers Level III perinatal
service.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4mwQ7H at no extra
charge.[CC]
CARLOTZ INC: Opposition to Class Certification Due Jan. 31, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE CARLOTZ, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05906-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun
Subramanian entered a scheduling order for the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification as follows:
Event Deadline
Class Certification Opening Brief and Nov. 29, 2024
Supporting Papers/Expert Report(s)
Defendants' Opposition to Class Jan. 31, 2025
Certification and Supporting Papers/Expert
Report(s)
Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Feb. 28, 2025
and Supporting Papers/Expert Report(s)
CarLotz operates as a used vehicle consignment and retail
remarketing business.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bv7zK9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Zimmerman Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ZIMMERMAN, ASIA
FOWLER, and LILLIAN MENA, individually and as representatives of a
Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of all
similarly situated participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM 403(B) RETIREMENT PLAN, v. CEDARS-SINAI
MEDICAL CENTER; THE CEDARS-SINAI BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ PENSION
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, THE CEDARS-SINAI DEFINED CONTRIBUTION
RETIREMENT PLANS' COMMITTEE, ANDY ORTIZ, DEBRA LEE, ERIC HOLOMAN,
JOSHUA LOBEL, LESLIE VERMUT, RICHARD SINAIKO, STEVEN ROMICK, MARK
RAPAPORT, JAMES NATHAN, DAVID WRIGLEY, JEFF SMITH, DAVID MARSHALL,
PASY WANG, BRYAN CROFT and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
5:23-cv-01124-JLS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Dec. 6, 2024,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) and (B),
will move the Court to:
(a) certify the Class of all participants in or beneficiaries of
the Cedars-Sinai Health System 403(b) Retirement Plan from
June
13, 2017, through the date of judgment, excluding Defendants
and members of the Defendant Boards and Committees;
(b) appoint Christina Humphrey Law, P.C. and Bradley/Grombacher,
LLP as class counsel; and
(c) appoint Asia Fowler and Lillian Mena as Class
Representatives.
Cedars-Sinai is a non-profit, tertiary, 915-bed teaching hospital
and multi-specialty academic health science center.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vh0Nio at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
1117 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 618-2924
Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com
- and -
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr. Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
CENTER FOR COMPLETE: Flores Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Center for Complete
Dentistry Inc. The case is styled as Debora Flores, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Center for
Complete Dentistry Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-23498-KMM (S.D. Fla.,
Sept. 11, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Center for Complete Dentistry Inc. focus on Dental Implants and
advanced procedures as well all of general dentistry needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW PA
20900 NE 30th Ave., 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
CENTRAL BANK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rutherford Suit Due Nov. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL C. RUTHERFORD III,
v. CENTRAL BANK OF KANSAS CITY, Case No. 3:24-cv-05299-TLF (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Theresa Fricke schedules this case for a
ten-day trial on Sep. 15, 2025, at 9:30am, with the following
pretrial schedule:
Event Date
Deadline to Join Additional Parties Oct. 11, 2024
Deadline to Amend Pleadings Oct. 11, 2024
Deadline to file Class Certification Motion Nov. 1, 2024
Plaintiff's Expert Reports due April 7, 2025
Defendants' Expert Reports due April 7, 2025
Summary Judgment and Daubert Motions due May 16, 2025
Mediation Completed by July 14, 2025
Central Bank of Kansas City is a community bank with a long and
successful history of business lending and outreach.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NlJYzy at no extra
charge.[CC]
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Class Cert Discovery in Deaver Suit Due Dec. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leslie Deaver, on behalf
of herself and a class of all others similarly situated, Robert B.
Deaver, Nicholas A. Marino, Jennifer Marino, Amber Brown, Barry
Bumford, Catherine B. Burns, Katie L. Higgs, Troy L. Higgs, Robert
Keene, Jennifer Poston, Melissa Morris, Travis Shippel, Myrna S.
Siebel, and David Howell, v. Century Aluminum Company and Century
Aluminum of South Carolina, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-05766-RMG
(D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Mark Gergel entered an amended
schedule order:
1. Stay of Discovery
At the parties' joint request for an extended stay to
further
facilitate settlement discussions following a mediation on
August 29, 2024, discovery is stayed through and including
September 20, 2024.
2. Expert Witnesses
The parties shall file and serve a document identifying by
full
name, address, and telephone number each person whom they
expect
to call as an expert at trial and certifying that a written
report prepared and signed by the expert including all
information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) has been
disclosed to the parties by the following dates: (a)
Plaintiffs
(i) Identification and report(s) by Plaintiffs on or before
October 18, 2024. (b) Defendants (i) Identification and
report(s) by Defendants on or before November 1, 2024.
3. Discovery
Discovery shall be completed no later than December 1, 2024.
All
discovery requests shall be served in time for the responses
thereto to be served by this deadline. Fact depositions must
be
completed by the discovery deadline. No motions relating to
discovery shall be filed until counsel have consulted and
attempted to resolve the matter as required by Local Civil
Rule
7.02.
4. Class Certification
All motions relating to class certification shall be filed no
later than January 3, 2025. Defendants shall file any
responsive
memorandum within four (4) weeks of Plaintiffs’ filing.
Century Aluminum is a US-based producer of primary aluminum.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T1JE3h at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHAMPION HOME: Ceja Must File Class Certification Bid by Oct. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CEJA, v. CHAMPION
HOME BUILDERS, INC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02223-FLA-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving in part
the parties stipulation to continue class certification hearing
deadline and set briefing schedule.
The Court orders as follows:
1. Plaintiff shall file his Motion for Class Certification on or
before Oct. 4, 2024.
2. Any opposition shall be due on or before Oct. 18, 2024.
3. Any reply shall be due on or before Nov. 1, 2024.
4. The court sets a hearing on the Motion for Class
Certification
for Nov. 22, 2024, at 1:30 p.m.
Champion Home is a mobile and modular home manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kylxtz at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHEESEBOARDER LLC: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ortiz, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. CHEESEBOARDER LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00851
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 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://boarderie.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 the
computer.
CHEESEBOARDER LLC, operates the Boarderie online retail store, as
well as the Boarderie interactive Website and advertises, markets,
and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
CLARENCE CORRECTIONAL: Faces False Imprisonment Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Justice Project believes some inmates at Clarence
Correctional Centre may have a strong case for false imprisonment
after a recent NSW Ombudsman's report exposed the vengeful,
unlawful and oppressive operations of the Serco facility.
Adjunct Professor George Newhouse, National Justice Project CEO,
said an Ombudsman's investigation into the events following an
assault on a correctional officer by a single inmate on September
21, 2023, shed light on the unjust and collective punishment meted
out to dozens of other inmates who were not involved in the
incident.
"No one is attempting to justify or downplay the violent act but
the inmate but what followed this assault was a series of
retaliatory actions by Serco which are nothing short of appalling,"
he said.
"Instead of focusing on the individual responsible, Serco imposed
collective punishments that affected scores of inmates who were not
involved in the assault. These included locking down an entire wing
housing 175 individuals for five days, placing three bystander
inmates into solitary confinement, and charging 34 inmates with
offenses they did not commit, with 33 of them being subjected to
Behaviour Management Contracts limiting and controlling their
rights, privileges and activities.
"It was revealed that the charges laid against the 34 inmates were
unsupported by reliable evidence, and the inquiry process was
flawed, with procedural safeguards ignored and penalties imposed
arbitrarily. Even more troubling is the misuse of Behaviour
Management Contracts, which appeared to be applied capriciously and
inconsistently, serving purposes they were never intended for.
"All people in this state have a right to be treated according to
law and to seek justice. The Ombudsman's report, reveals a system
where prisoners are treated with contempt, subjected to arbitrary
punishments, and denied access to justice. It is rare for such
injustices within the prison system to be brought to light, and the
NSW Ombudsman deserves commendation for his thorough investigation
and for holding Serco accountable for its unlawful actions.
"There is now a clear need for further legal action to address the
wrongs done to the inmates at Clarence Correctional Centre and the
National Justice Centre is in discussions with senior barristers
about whether affected inmates have a case for false imprisonment,"
Adjunct Professor Newhouse said. [GN]
CLEARLY HOLDINGS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Blakely
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blakely v. Clearly
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01172-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a
standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eXqshb at no extra
charge.[CC]
COBHAM ADVANCED: Class Settlement in Wightman Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WIGHTMAN, on
behalf of himself and for all other current and former aggrieved
employees, v. COBHAM ADVANCED ELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS INC.; and DOES 1
- 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01784-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Todd Robinson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for final approval of class action settlement pursuant to
Rule 23(e):
The following persons are conditionally certified as Class Members
solely for the purpose of Settlement:
"All individuals who worked for Defendants in California as a
non-
exempt, hourly paid employee at any time during the period from
Sept.3, 2017 through March 21, 2024 (i.e. the date of
preliminary
approval)."
However, the following individuals who submitted timely opt-out
requests shall be excluded: Christina Y. Bryant, Jeffrey C. Yee,
Phillip Bailey, Boonmee Sisawang, and Michael A. Leggett. There
remain 1,886 Class Members participating in the Settlement.
The Court finds the settlement of Plaintiffs' California Labor
Code's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim fair, adequate,
and reasonable. Of the $150,000 allocated to settle the portion of
the case brought under PAGA, 75% of the PAGA penalties,
$112,500.00, shall be paid to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency ("LWDA"), and the remaining 25% of the PAGA
penalties, $37,500.00, shall be part of the Net Settlement Fund.
The Plaintiff represents that the LWDA has received notice of the
proposed settlement in the manner required by the LWDA, and Class
Counsel confirmed during the Fairness Hearing that the LWDA was
properly notified of the Settlement and has not objected or
commented upon the Settlement.
The Court grants in part Plaintiff's Fee Motion. The Court confirms
Plaintiff William Wightman's appointment as Class Representative
and AWARDS Plaintiff a Class Representative Service Payment of
$12,000. The Court finds this amount fair and reasonable
considering Plaintiff’s contributions to this litigation.
The Court further confirms Phoenix's appointment as the Settlement
Administrator and APPROVES the payment of Phoenix's fees and
expenses in the sum of $17,500. 12.
The Court further confirms Cody R. Kennedy and Alan Lazar, of
Marlin & Saltzman LLP, and Emil Davtyan, of D.Law, as Class Counsel
for the Settlement Class and AWARDS Class Counsel $1,000,000 in
attorneys’ fees and $79,689 in costs.
The Court grants final approval of the Parties' Settlement
Agreement. The Settlement appears to fall within the range of
possible approval as fair, adequate, and reasonable, appears to be
the product of arm’s-length and informed negotiations, and
appears to treat all Class Members equitably.
The Court further finds that the settlement of Plaintiff's
California Labor Code PAGA claim is fair and reasonable and grants
final approval of the Settlement and release of the PAGA claim and
the payment to the LWDA in the sum of $112,500.
Cobham is a provider of advanced RF technology to the United States
aerospace and defense industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0SGmol at no extra
charge.[CC]
CORSAIR GAMING: All Class Cert-Related Bids Terminated as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McKinney v. Corsair
Gaming, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00312 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 14,
2022), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order terminating as
moot all motions related to the Plaintiffs' prior motion for class
certification in light of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement.
-- Motions terminated: 78, 105, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 124, 133,
and 138.
The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability.
Corsair designs and sells gaming and streaming peripherals,
components, and systems.[CC]
COSMED GROUP INC: Motley Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brenda Motley, Teresa Liriano, Diana Valdes, and
Angela Santiago, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. COSMED GROUP, INC., CHS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC, JS
URBAN RENEWAL CORP., and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-25, Case No.
UNN-L-002802-24 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Union County, New Jersey, to the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on Sept. 9, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-09063.
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Cosmed has operated and
continues to operate a food sterilization facility located in
Linden, New Jersey (the "Linden Facility") that uses ethylene oxide
("EtO") to sterilize certain products. The Plaintiffs allege that
Cosmed negligently used and emitted EtO into the air around the
Linden Facility, causing personal injury to Plaintiffs and their
property, harming potential class members, and creating the need
for decades of medical monitoring.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Gitelman, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
400 Broad Hollow Road - Suite 305
Melville, NY 11747-4810
Phone: (212) 397-1000
Email: rgitelman@napolilaw.com
- and -
Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
Michael Cohen, Esq.
Eric S. Pasternack, Esq.
Jared M. Placitella, Esq.
Drew M. Renzi, Esq.
COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
127 Maple Avenue
Red Bank, NJ 07701-1759
Phone: (732) 747-9003
Email: cplacitella@cprlaw.com
mcoren@cprlaw.com
epastemack@cprlaw.com
jmplacitella@cprlaw.com
drenzi@cprlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Donald J. Camerson, II, Esq.
Diana C. Manning, Esq.
BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS, P.C.
325 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 301
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Email: djcamerson@bressler.com
dmanning@bressler.com
- and -
Charles M. Gering, Esq.
Anthony D. Pesce, Esq.
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
161 North Clark Street, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 261-6888
Email: cgering@pedersenhoupt.com
apesce@pedersenhoupt.com
CREDIT SUISSE: Metzler Settlement Class Gets Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit METZLER INVESTMENT GmBH, et al., v.
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, ET AL. (Libor-Based Financial Instruments
Antitrust Litigation), Case No. 1:11-md-02262 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order certifying Settlement
Class.
Th Defendants include Credit Suisse, Llyods Bank plc and Bank of
Scotland plc.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I6ax0d at no extra
charge.[CC]
CREDIT SUISSE: Settlement Class in FTC Suit Gets Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FTC Capital GMBH et al.,
v. Credit Suisse Group, AG et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-02613-NRB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order
entered an order certifying Settlement Class.
Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services
firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sjN1a1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CRYSTAL WINDOW: Loses Partial Bid to Dismiss Reyes Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX REYES and CARLOS
LASTRA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
CRYSTAL WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEM, LTD., Case No. 1:23-cv-02578-RPK-JRC
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Rachel Kovner entered an order denying
the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs'
pay-frequency claims, and plaintiffs have adequately pleaded
standing over wage notice and wage-statement claims.
In this Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law litigation,
defendant Crystal Window & Door System, Ltd. moves under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss two of plaintiffs'
claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Defendant's
motion is denied.
The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law
pay-frequency claim because it arises out of the same nucleus of
operative facts as their federal overtime claim and because no
discretionary reasons to decline jurisdiction exist.
And plaintiffs have Article III standing to pursue their
wage-statement and wage-notice claims because they have
sufficiently alleged that defendant's noncompliance with the
statutory notice
requirements caused them concrete harms.
On April 4, 2023, the plaintiffs commenced this action against
defendant, bringing four claims.
Counts I and II alleged that defendant underpaid plaintiffs for
their overtime hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the New York Labor Law (NYLL), respectively. Count III alleged that
the defendant failed to provide plaintiffs with accurate wage
notices and periodic wage statements, in violation of the NYLL.
And Count IV alleged that, as manual workers, plaintiffs were
entitled to be paid weekly under NYLL section 191(1), but that
defendant paid them biweekly.
Crystal Window is a manufacturer of residential and commercial
windows with a plant in Queens, New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=akwBq0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAILY SALE: Cano Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daily Sale, Inc. The
case is styled as Daniel Cano, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Daily Sale, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-23504-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 11, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
DailySale -- https://dailysale.com/ -- offers discount products
online, including quality discount household items, electronics,
and apparel need.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
DELTA DENTAL: Cavallaro-Kearins Sues Over Breach of Data Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Cavallaro-Kearins, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK, INC., Case
No. 7:24-cv-06946 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought concerning
a breach of the Defendant's data privacy and security obligations
as it installed certain tracking technologies on its digital
property to collect and to disclose to unauthorized third parties
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information
("PII") and non-public personal health information ("PHI" and with
PII, "Private Information") for its own pecuniary gain.
Specifically, in order to gain additional insights into its plan
members, improve its return on its marketing spend and, ultimately,
to increase its revenue, Delta Dental encouraged Plaintiff and
Class Members to access and to use various digital tools via its
website https://www1.deltadentalins.com/ (the "Website") in order
to, among other things, find dentists within their particular
insurance plan that were located near Plaintiff and Class Members.
The Plaintiff and Class Members who visited and used Defendant's
Website understandably thought they were communicating only with
their trusted health plan. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class
Members, however, Defendant embeds several tracking
technologies--including those offered by Adobe, Google, Datadog,
and Qualtrics--on its Website that automatically transmits to each
service technology provider confidential details about Delta
Dental's plan members.
Operating as designed and as implemented by Defendant, the tracking
technologies at issue in this case allowed the Private Information
that Plaintiff and Class Members provided to Defendant to be
unlawfully disclosed to Adobe, Google, Datadog, and Qualtrics
alongside unique and persistent identifiers that identify the plan
member in a manner that violates federal law.
Neither Plaintiff nor any other Class Member were provided, much
less signed, a written authorization permitting Defendant to
disclose their Private Information to Adobe, Google, Datadog, and
Qualtrics or any third-party service provider.
Despite willfully and intentionally incorporating the tracking
technologies into its Website and servers, Defendant has never
disclosed to Plaintiff or Class Members that it shared their
sensitive and confidential communications and Private Information
with Adobe, Google, Datadog, and Qualtrics. As a result, Plaintiff
and Class Members were unaware that their PII and PHI were being
surreptitiously transmitted to Adobe, Google, Datadog, and
Qualtrics as they communicated with their health plan, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff logged into her Delta Dental portal on the Delta
Dental Website.
The Delta Dental offers dental health insurance to New York
residents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP
433 Plaza Real, Suite 275
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 849-8060
Email: edwoskin@dwowas.com
DEXCOM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 21
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your DexCom, Inc. (NASDAQ:DXCM)
investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the
federal securities laws, follow the link below for more
information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/dexcom-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=101052&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
DexCom, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were
adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between January 8,
2024 and July 25, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, on July 25, 2024, Dexcom
announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal
2024 and reduced its revenue guidance for the full fiscal year
2024. The Company attributed its results and lowered guidance on
their execution of "several key strategic initiatives" which "did
not meet [their] high standards." Investors and analysts reacted
immediately to DexCom's revelation. The price of DexCom's common
stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $107.85
per share on July 25, 2024, DexCom's stock price fell to $64.00 per
share on July 26, 2024, a decline of about 40.66% in the span of
just a single day.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in DexCom stock during the
relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/dexcom-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=101052&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
DIALYSIS CARE: Converse Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Converse, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DIALYSIS CARE CENTER MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-08229 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 10, 2024), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to overtime
pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and those similarly
situated regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week, and were
paid some overtime for those hours, but at a rate that did not
include Defendant's shift differentials or hazard pay as required
by the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from June of 2023 through
May of 2024.
Dialysis Care Center Management LLC was founded in 2010 and offers
in-home and center-based dialysis treatment and services for
clients in 8 states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Phone: (269) 250-7500
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
kmilz@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 824-3828
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Misleads Investors in Japan, Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Rishav Chatterjee, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that
Australian pizza chain Domino's Pizza Enterprises has been served
with a shareholder class action, which includes an allegation that
it misled investors in 2021 about expected performance in Japan.
The pizza maker, in a market filing on Monday, September 9, denied
any liability and said it would defend against the legal
proceeding.
Its shares were trading lower by as much as 2.8% at A$29.1.
Legal consultancy Echo Law has filed the proceeding on behalf of
Domino's shareholders who scooped an interest in the firm by
entering equity swap confirmations between Aug. 18, 2021 and Nov.
3, 2021.
Echo Law on its website said the class action was in relation to a
Domino's announcement made on Nov. 3, 2021.
Domino's had said in a trading update on Nov. 3, 2021 that its
Japan operations recorded "excellent compounding sales" and had
added that new store openings in the country continued to remain
strong.
"As a result of structural changes in marketing, pricing and store
penetration, current sales and customer counts remain materially
higher than corresponding period pre-COVID," the pizza chain had
said in 2021.
Echo Law in an emailed statement told Reuters that it had filed the
proceeding in the Federal court of Australia on behalf of
shareholders.
"The class action seeks to recover the loss and damage suffered by
shareholders as a result of Domino's alleged conduct," the firm
said in the statement.
Domino's Pizza Enterprises decided to close low-volume stores in
both Japan and France in July this year, leading analysts to slash
their earnings outlook and sending its shares to a
more-than-nine-year low. [GN]
EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: Murray Bid to Certify Class Moot
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murray v. EarthLink
Holdings Corp., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00202 (E.D. Ark., Filed
March 19, 2018), the Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr. entered an order
on motion to certify class.
This motion is moot in light of the Plaintiff's unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement.
The suit alleges Federal Communications Act of 1934.
EarthLink provides managed network, security, and cloud services to
business and residential customers in the United States.[CC]
EIDP INC: Filing for Class Cert in Manning Bid Due Feb. 27, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES M. MANNING, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EIDP, INC.
f/k/a E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, THE ADMINISTRATION
COMMITTEE OF THE DUPONT PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN and JOHN/JANE
DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:23-cv-00271-JLH (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge
Jennifer Hall entered an order that:
1. The parties having agreed, subject to the approval of the
Court
that these matters will include substantial similar issues of
fact and/or law such that, in the interests of efficiency,
the
matters should be consolidated for purposes of discovery, the
parties shall file all documents related to discovery with
both
case captions listed above and shall file all documents
related
to discovery on both dockets.
2. Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures and E-Discovery Default
Standard. The parties shall make their initial disclosures
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) by Sept.
16, 2024.
3. Joinder of Other Parties and Amendment of Pleadings. All
motions
to join other parties, and to amend or supplement the
pleadings,
shall be filed on or before Oct. 25, 2024. Such motions must
follow the provisions of Paragraphs 7(g) and 8
4. Discovery. The Parties have agreed that the cases should be
consolidated for purposes of discovery and the discovery
parameters account for certain differences between the two
cases.
5. Discovery Cut Off. All discovery in this case shall be
completed
on or before Sept. 12, 2025.
6. All discovery relevant to whether Plaintiffs' claims are
barred
by the statute of limitations shall be completed on or before
7. Class Certification. The Plaintiffs' motions for class
certification shall be filed on or before Feb. 27, 2026. The
Defendants' opposition shall be filed on or before Apr. 3,
2026.
The Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed on or before May 15,
2026.
EIDP operates as a agricultural chemical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s8svTc at no extra
charge.[CC]
ELLY'S PHOENIX: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Smith Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELLY'S PHOENIX, INC., JOHN GEORGES and JANE
DOE GEORGES, a married couple, and CHRISTOS GEORGES and JANE DOE
GEORGES II, a married couple, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-02405-MTL (D. Ariz., September 11, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server at the Elly's
Brunch & Cafe in Phoenix, Arizona in or around October 2023.
Elly's Phoenix, Inc. is the owner and operator of a chain of
restaurants called Elly's Brunch & Cafe in Illinois and Arizona.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
chris@bendaulaw.com
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Bid to Seal Provisionally Sealed Exhibits OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gomez, et al., v. Epic
Landscape Productions, L.C., Case No. 2:22-cv-02198 (D. Kan., Filed
May 30, 2022), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting unopposed
motion to seal or redact provisionally sealed exhibits in support
of motion.
-- The Defendants' motion requested that Docs. 268 and 268-1
(Exhibits 4 and 12 to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class
Certification) remain under seal and that redacted versions be
filed in the public record.
-- The Court grants this motion and finds that the privacy
interests
in protecting federal tax ID and sensitive business information
outweighs the public's right of access. Counsel who
provisionally
filed the documents under seal is directed to file the redacted
documents in the public record forthwith using the Redacted
Document event.
-- The provisionally sealed documents will remain sealed and the
clerk is directed to remove the provisional designation from
the
entry.
-- The Clerk is directed to unseal Docs. 268-1 and 268-3, as no
party has moved to seal these provisionally sealed documents.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
EPIC specializes in designing and building landscapes.[CC]
EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jackson-Jones' Bid for Class Certification OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIENE JACKSON-JONES et
al., v. EPOCH EVERLASTING PLAY, LLC et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright, II
entered an order granting Jackson-Jones's motion for class
certification.
Accordingly, the Court certifies the following class under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on all causes of action set forth
in Jackson-Jones's Complaint:
"All persons in the State of California who purchased at least
one
of the Products, for personal use and not for re-sale, since
Jan. 30, 2019."
The term "Products" in the class definition means all Calico
Critters flocked toys that were sold with a small part. A list
of
the Calico Critters toys at issue is attached to this Order as
Appendix A.
Excluded from the class are Defendants, their officers,
directors,
agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts,
representatives, employees, successors, assigns, or other
persons
or entities related to or affiliated with Defendants and/or
their
officers and directors; and the judicial officers and their
immediate family and associated staff assigned to this case.
In summary, the Court finds that the proposed class satisfies the
four requirements of Rule 23(a), the common issues will predominate
over individualized issues, and a class action will be superior to
alternative methods of adjudication.
Accordingly, the proposed class may be certified under Rule
23(b)(3), and the Court need not address Jackson-Jones's
alternative argument for certification under Rule 23(b)(2).
The Plaintiff Williene Jackson-Jones brings this putative class
action against Defendants Epoch Everlasting Play, LLC and
Amazon.com Services LLC, asserting claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") and for unjust enrichment.
The putative class action concerns the Defendants' sale of certain
Calico Critters flocked toys to the proposed plaintiff class.
Jackson-Jones alleges that certain Calico Critters are "banned
hazardous substances" under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act
("FHSA") because they (1) are intended for use by children under
the age of three and (2) are or contain a small part.
Jackson-Jones purchased Epoch's Calico Critters flocked toys for
her grandchildren on Amazon. Had Jackson-Jones known that the toys
were banned hazardous substances, she would not have purchased
them.
Epoch Everlasting delivers innovative and entertaining products
with superior play value and childhood developmental qualities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Euegsb at no extra
charge.[CC]
EXICURE INC: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Exicure, Inc. (Nasdaq: XCUR, the "Company") announced on September
9, 2024 that it has entered into an agreement with plaintiffs to
settle Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-CV-06637, a
previously disclosed securities class action lawsuit pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(the "Court"). The settlement is subject to Court approval, and
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement with the Court on September 6, 2024.
The settlement does not constitute any admission by the Company of
any liability or wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the Company believes it
is beneficial to resolve the case as further litigation would be
burdensome and protracted.
About Exicure
Exicure, Inc. has historically been an early-stage biotechnology
company focused on developing nucleic acid therapies targeting
ribonucleic acid against validated targets. Following its recent
restructuring and suspension of clinical and development
activities, the Company is exploring strategic alternatives to
maximize stockholder value, both with respect to its historical
biotechnology assets and more broadly. For further information, see
www.exicuretx.com.
Contacts
Josh Miller, Esq.
(847) 673-1700
media@exicuretx.com [GN]
EXIT REALTY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 15, 2025
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALLERSTEIN v. EXIT REALTY
CORP INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 1:24-cv-01653 (D.D.C., Filed June 6,
2024), the Hon. Judge Randolph D. Moss entered an order adopting
the following proposed order:
-- Deadline for Initial Disclosures on or before: Sept. 20,
2024
-- Deadline for Joinder and Amendments On or Dec. 6,
2024
Before:
-- Deadline for Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures May 25,
2025
and to Produce Expert Witness Reports on or
before:
-- Deadline for Defendant's Expert Disclosures June 25,
2025
and to Produce Expert Witness Reports on or
before:
-- Deadline for Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert July 25,
2025
Disclosures on or before:
-- Deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Aug. 15,
2025
Certification on or before:
-- Deadline for Defendant's Opposition to Sept. 15,
2025
Plaintiff's Motion on or before:
-- Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply to Sept. 29,
2025
Defendant's Opposition on or before:
-- Hearing on Motion for Class Certification Oct. 9, 2025
at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8:
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) involving restrictions of use of telephone equipment.
Exit Realty was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business
includes originating mortgage loans, selling mortgage loans to
permanent.[CC]
F&E AIRCRAFT: Maldonado Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Francisco Maldonado, as an individual and on
behalf of the State of California and others similarly situated and
aggrieved v. F&E AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE (MIAMI), LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, PYEONGKOOK KIM, an individual, and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV17311 was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Sept. 9, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07690.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action against
F&E, both individually and on behalf of purportedly similarly
situated individuals: Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Pay
Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide
Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure
to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Upon Termination;
Unlawful Competition/Unlawful Business Practices; and Violations of
the Private Attorney General Act per Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam R. Rosenthal, Esq.
Robert K. Foster, Esq.
Rachel N. Schuster, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130-4092
Phone: 858.720.8900
Facsimile: 858.509.3691
Email: arosenthal@sheppardmullin.com
rfoster@sheppardmullin.com
rschuster@sheppardmullin.com
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Plaintiffs' SAC
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB REINKRAUT, STEVE
SMITH, MATTHEW CHAPMAN, SARI MEDINA, JOSEPH MAGEE, JT WILLCUTT,
ROBERT ZAUGG, ROBERT SECCO, JOHN and LAURA KOTOS, MAURICE WILSON,
KEVIN MORRIS, JAMES MURRAY and ANTHONY SOLIMANDO on behalf of
themselves and the Putative Class, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-02792-JKS-CLW
(D.N.J.),the Hon. Judge Jamel Semper entered an order granting in
part and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint (SAC).
Here, the Plaintiffs' SAC falls short of identifying 100 named
plaintiffs. Accordingly, Count 6 is dismissed without prejudice.
While the SAC generally alleges that Defendant advertises the Class
Vehicles as safe, dependable, and durable, the Plaintiff Medina
does not specifically identify any fraudulent conduct by FCA.
Accordingly, Counts 11, 12, and 13 are dismissed without prejudice.
Here, Plaintiff has included some conclusory allegations regarding
the unconscionability of the warranty's durational limits. However,
she has not provided the full terms of the warranty itself, so the
Court cannot adequately assess substantive unconscionability at
this time. Accordingly, Count 14 is dismissed without prejudice.
This putative class action arises from an alleged Windshield Defect
present in certain Jeep vehicles. The Plaintiffs bring this action
on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated individuals and
entities (the "Class") who own, lease, or have owned or leased Jeep
Wranglers and Gladiators for model years 2016 to the present (the
"Class Vehicles") manufactured and/or sold by the Defendant.
The Plaintiffs allege Defendant failed to inform Class Vehicle
owners and lessees prior to purchase that the windshields of Jeep
Wranglers, Gladiators, and Grand Cherokees were subject to
premature cracking, fracturing, or chipping, would fail shortly
after expiration of the express warranty, or would be denied
warranty coverage based upon exclusions in the warranty
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XYeNWa at no extra
charge.[CC]
FLORIDA AGENCY: Class Settlement in Meza Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLANCA MEZA, BY AND
THROUGH HER GUARDIAN, AIDE HERNANDEZ, DESTINY BELANGER, BY AND
THROUGH HER GUARDIAN, JULIE BELANGER, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND DISABILITY RIGHTS OF FLORIDA,
INC., v. JASON WEIDA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY FOR THE
FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Case No.
3:22-cv-00783-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Patricia
Barksdale entered an order granting the motions for final approval
of the class-action settlement, and an attorney's fee award.
-- The proposed settlement is approved.
-- AHCA must pay the plaintiffs $50,000 as an attorney's fee by
Oct.
3, 2024.
-- The parties must file a joint motion for voluntary dismissal of
the action with prejudice by Sept. 10, 2024.
-- The joint motion must include a proposed judgment.
In this class action, the plaintiffs sue Jason Weida in his
official capacity as Secretary for the Florida Agency for Health
Care Administration (AHCA), alleging that AHCA's coverage policies
concerning incontinence supplies for Medicaid recipients aged 21
and older violate the Medicaid Act, Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The Court certified the following class under Rule 23(b)(2),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All Florida Medicaid recipients whose prescription for
incontinence supplies has been or will be denied Medicaid
coverage
based on [AHCA]'s exclusion of those supplies for recipients
aged
21 and older."
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AXKx2j at no extra
charge.[CC]
FOCUS DC: Harris Seeks to Stay Class Certification Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIEN HARRIS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FOCUS DC LLC and NEBIU ALI; Case No. 1:24-cv-01687-DLF (D.D.C.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order staying his deadline
to move for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1) and
LCvR 23.1(b) pending the parties' submission of their report to the
Court and proposed scheduling order under LCvR 16.3(d).
Because the Defendant has not yet filed an answer to the complaint
and because discovery has not commenced, the Plaintiff has not had
a reasonable opportunity to seek discovery relevant to class
certification or to file a motion therefore.
The Plaintiff filed this action on June 11, 2024.
The Defendants responded to the complaint on Sept. 5, 2024, by
filing a partial motion to dismiss.
Focus DC provides consulting around legislative affairs and
regulations services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4BXLX9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
Edmund Celiesius, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Stephen B. Lebau, Esq.
LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC
502 Washington Avenue - Suite 720
Towson, Maryland 21204
Telephone: (443) 273-1203
Facsimile: (410) 296-8660
E-mail: sl@joblaws.net
FORD MOTOR: Martin Must File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 21, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA MARTIN, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Case No. 2:20-cv-10365-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly
Gee entered an order that:
1. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
Ford's motion for summary judgment both shall be set for
Feb. 21, 2025 at 2:00 PM.
2. Ford shall file its summary judgment motion on or before
Sept.
19, 2024.
3. The Plaintiff shall file any opposition to Ford's motion for
summary for judgment on or before Dec. 12, 2024.
4. Ford shall file any opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class
Certification on or before Oct. 1, 2024.
5. Ford shall file any reply brief in support of Ford's motion
for
summary judgment on or before Jan. 24, 2025.
6. The Plaintiff shall file any reply brief in support of the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on or before Jan.
24,
2025.
Ford Motor sells automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford
brand, and luxury cars under its Lincoln brand.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hje5sO at no extra
charge.[CC]
GARAGE CARS: Consumer Class in Barrett Suit Gets Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Barrett, v. The
Garage Cars, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-11018-NMG (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge Nathaniel Gorton entered an order allowing the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification of:
"(a) all consumers residing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
who, (b) from March 16, 2019 to the present, (c) purchased a
vehicle from, and paid a 'Documentary Preparation' fee to, the
Defendant, (d) after viewing the Defendant's advertisement for
that vehicle."
The Court concludes that plaintiff has, however, satisfied the low
hurdle posed by Rule 23's numerosity requirement.
Accordingly, even if some putative class members saw an advertised
price from The Garage that did not include any documentary
preparation fee but notified purchasers that the fee would be added
later, they would still be eligible to join the class.
The Plaintiff avers that The Garage failed to disclose the $489
documentary preparation fee in its online advertisement or
otherwise include the fee in the vehicle's advertised sale price,
thereby violating Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A and 940 Code Mass. Regs.
Section 5.02(3).
The Defendant is a full service auto repair shop.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wa8nVJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for Entry of Final Judgment Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT RIDDELL, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00254-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Stephen Limbaugh, Jr. entered an order denying the
Defendant's motion for entry of final judgment and granting the
proposed intervenors' motion to intervene.
The proposed intervenors satisfy the requirements for intervention
as a matter of right. First, they each have a legally protectable
interest in the subject of this action.
They are members of the former Class, the owners of Class Vehicles,
and have MMPA claims against defendant that arise from their
purchase of Class Vehicles with the Oil Consumption Defect. Second,
the disposition of this action may impair the proposed
intervenors’ ability to protect their interests.
Each of the proposed intervenors has provided a declaration
affirming that his Class Vehicle has suffered excessive oil
consumption, and this Court again declines to reconsider its
rulings on the subject.
Plaintiff Robert Riddell brought this lawsuit on behalf of himself
and a putative class of similarly situated individuals against
defendant General Motors LLC ("GM").
In May 2024, this Court held that defendant was entitled to summary
judgment on claims related to vehicles purchased before October
2012.
Because lead plaintiff Riddell purchased his truck in September
2012, his claims fail as a matter of law, and Riddell was therefore
no longer a suitable class representative.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FkXX3n
at no extra charge.[CC]
GEO GROUP: Class Cert Hearing in Gonzalez Continued to Nov. 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUGO GONZALEZ, JOSE BACA,
ERICK LOPEZ, MARIO MANJARREZ, and RICARDO SANDOVAL GUADARRAMA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. The GEO
Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, DOES 1-10, Case No.
2:22-cv-04014-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus Bernal
entered an order
granting joint stipulation to continue dispositive motion hearing
deadline, set class certification motion hearing deadline, set
briefing schedules:
Current Date Requested
Date
Dispositive Motion/Class Oct. 28, 2024 Nov. 18,
2024
Certification Motion hearing
cut-off
Briefing deadline for Class
Certification
Motion filing deadline Sept. 30, 2024 Sept. 23,
2024
Opposition deadline Oct. 7, 2024 Oct. 15,
2024
Reply deadline Oct. 15, 2024 Oct. 28,
2024
Briefing deadline for
Dispositive Motion
Motion filing deadline Sept. 30, 2024 Sept. 30,
2024
Opposition deadline Oct. 7, 2024 Oct. 21,
2024
Reply deadline Oct. 15, 2024 Nov. 4,
2024
GEO Group provides rehabilitation programs to individuals while
in-custody and post-release into the community.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MJPYxS at no extra
charge.[CC]
GITHUB INC: Class Fact Discovery Cut-Off Extended to March 27, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. DOE 1, et al., v.
GITHUB, INC., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-06823-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order extending case deadlines as
follows:
Case Event Previous New
Deadline Deadline
Fact discovery cut-off Sept. 27, 2024 March 27,
2025
Plaintiffs' expert reports due Nov. 08, 2024 May 6,
2025
Defendants' expert reports due Dec. 13, 2024 June 11,
2025
Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert Jan. 24, 2025 Sept. 23,
2025
reports due
Expert discovery cut-off Feb. 21, 2025 Oct. 21,
2025
Class certification and Daubert March 27, 2025 Nov. 20,
2025
motions due
Class certification and Daubert April 24, 2025 Dec. 22,
2025
oppositions due
Class certification and Daubert May 22, 2025 Jan. 24,
2026
replies due
GitHub is a developer platform that allows developers to create,
store, manage and share their code.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=agrfwI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
Louis A. Kessler, Esq.
Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq.
William W. Castillo Guardado, Esq.
Holden J. Benon, Esq.
Margaux Poueymirou, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1505
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
lkessler@saverilawfirm.com
eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com
wcastillo@saverilawfirm.com
hbenon@saverilawfirm.com
mpoueymirou@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
Matthew Butterick, Esq.
1920 Hillhurst Avenue, Esq.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Telephone: (323) 968-2632
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
Email: mb@buttericklaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Annette L. Hurst, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 773-5700
Facsimile: 415-773-5759
E-mail: ahurst@orrick.com
- and -
Vera Ranieri, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
E-mail: vranieri@mofo.com
GKN DRIVELINE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMEKA FERGES AND DARRICK
PAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
1:23–CV–585–LCB–LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order extending GKN's time to respond to the
Plaintiffs' Conditional FLSA Collective Certification Motion and
Rule 23 Class Certification Motion to and including the date that
is 14 days after the date the Court rules on GKN's pending
Emergency Motion to Stay Briefing, if any response is then deemed
necessary.
GKN submits that good cause exists to grant the extension GKN
seeks. Absent the requested relief from the response deadline,
GKN's pending Emergency Motion to Stay Certification Briefing would
be rendered moot.
Further, GKN's Emergency Motion to Stay Certification Briefing is
supported by the same good cause and logic that formed the basis
for GKN's motion to stay class-wide discovery, which Judge Biggs
granted.
On the evening of Sunday, Aug. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed, in
the Ayers case only, a Motion To Conditionally Certify This Matter
As A Collective Action And For A Court-Authorized Notice To Be
Issued Under Section 216(b) Of The Fair Labor Standards Act,
without an accompanying brief.
On Sept. 3, 2024, with the Plaintiffs' counsel's knowledge and
authorization, counsel for GKN contacted the Court (Ms. Debbie
Blay, Case Manager and Courtroom Deputy) to advise that the parties
anticipated filing a joint motion seeking to stay the action.
However, due to a subsequent fundamental disagreement between the
parties regarding the circumstances upon which they would agree to
jointly move to stay the action, no such motion was filed.
GKN Driveline manufactures automotive parts.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WWQy1c at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin S. Joyner, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS
4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: (919) 787-9700
Facsimile: (919) 783-9412
E-mail: Kevin.Joyner@ogletreedeakins.com
- and -
Paul Decamp, Esq.
Adriana S. Kosovych, Esq.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
1227 25th Street, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 861-1819
Facsimile: (202) 861-3571
E-mail: PDeCamp@ebglaw.com
AKosovych@ebglaw.com
GRID ONE: Ruffner et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------
SCOTT RUFFNER, LARRY BALCOLM, and JEREMY NIMMO, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by
GRID ONE SOLUTIONS, Plaintiffs v. GRID ONE SOLUTIONS, LLC and any
related entities, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01097-DNH-ML
(N.D.N.Y., September 10, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules
and Regulations.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of a putative
class collective consisting of similarly situated employees who
worked for Defendant in New York State as hourly paid Technicians,
Field Leads, and other non-exempt employees performing similar
duties in furtherance of Defendant's operations as a gas,
electricity, and water utility provider. From at least August 2018
and continuing through the present, Defendant has allegedly engaged
in a policy and practice of having its employees regularly work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing overtime compensation
as required by the applicable federal and state laws. Among other
things, the Defendant also subjected its employees to its automatic
meal-break deduction policy and practice, say the Plaintiffs.
Headquartered in Media, PA, Grid One Solutions, LLC provides
advanced metering infrastructure deployments for electric, gas and
water utilities in the United States and Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan Files, Esq.
Frank Gattuso, Esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
The White House
7030 E. Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
Telephone: (315) 314-8000
Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
E-mail: rfiles@gclawoffice.com
fgattuso@gclawoffice.com
GULLY TRANSPORTATION: Seals Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shawn Seals, v. Gully
Transportation, Inc. Case No. 4:23-cv-00824-RK (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying the case as a collective action for purposes of
settlement administration, consisting of:
"all persons nationwide who were, are or will be employed by
the Defendant as Yard Hostlers who do not operate as a driver,
driver's helper, loader or mechanic in interstate commerce from
Nov. 8, 2020 through Nov. 8, 2023"; and
-- approving the settlement and notice process.
The Court find the settlement reached by the Parties to be a fair
and reasonable settlement of a bona fide wage and hour dispute
The Plaintiff seals filed this lawsuit on Nov. 8, 2023, alleging
that his employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
when it failed to pay him overtime for hours worked in excess of 40
per week.
On Aug. 7, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for
preliminary approval, and directed Plaintiff to seek approval for
the attorney's fee portion of the settlement, and to provide
information on how the settlement fund would be broken down among
the class members.
The main terms of the agreement are as follows:
-- The settlement creates and makes available a common fund of
$24,500 to settle the claims of the five class members
-- Attorneys’ fees will comprise one-third of the fund
($8,166.67).
-- Costs will total approximately $477.38
-- Settlement administration costs will be handled by Plaintiff's
counsel
-- The Named Plaintiff will receive a service award of $1,000 for
service that he provided during the litigation, and in exchange
for a general release of all claims.
-- The $15,855.95 constituting payment to the class (after
attorney’s
fees, costs, and the proposed service award) will be
distributed
proportionally based on calculated overtime owed
Gully provides transportation services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uJOGhk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
Brad K. Thoenen, Esq.
Kevin A. Todd, Esq.
Ethan A. Crockett, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
1501 Westport Road
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 875.9339
E-mail: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
bthoenen@hkm.com
ktodd@hkm.com
ecrockett@hkm.com
- and -
Michael Hodgson, Esq.
THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
3609 SW Pryor Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64082
Telephone: (816) 600-0117
Facsimile: (816) 600-0137
E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com
GUNNAR OPTIKS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged BIPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a major legal battle has erupted
over the use of biometric data in virtual try-on software for
eyewear. Plaintiff Macaire Marino filed a class action complaint
against Gunnar Optiks LLC in the Circuit Court of Cook County on
June 27, 2022, alleging that the company violated Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting facial
geometry scans without proper consent.
The lawsuit centers around Gunnar Optiks LLC's "virtual try-on"
software, which allows customers to see how they would look wearing
different eyeglasses and sunglasses by scanning their facial
features. Marino claims that this software collects, stores, and
uses biometric identifiers -- specifically facial geometry scans --
without adhering to BIPA's stringent requirements for handling such
sensitive information. According to Marino, Gunnar failed to obtain
informed consent from users or provide disclosures mandated by the
Act.
Marino's complaint seeks not only monetary damages but also an
injunction requiring Gunnar to comply with BIPA regulations moving
forward. The plaintiff argues that the company's actions constitute
a severe invasion of privacy and breach statutory rights protected
under BIPA. "Individuals possess a right to privacy in and control
over their biometric identifiers and biometric information," Marino
stated in her filing, quoting previous court interpretations of
BIPA.
Gunnar Optiks responded by filing a motion to dismiss the case on
November 15, 2022. The company argued that its collection of
biometric data falls under a health care exclusion within BIPA
because it pertains to eyewear -- a product related to vision
health. The Circuit Court partially agreed with Gunnar's argument,
dismissing claims related to prescription eyewear but allowing
those concerning non-prescription eyewear to proceed.
Seeking further clarity, Gunnar moved for an interlocutory appeal
under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308. The certified question posed
was whether individuals using virtual try-on tools for
non-prescription sunglasses could be considered patients in a
health care setting under BIPA's health care exemption. On August
30, 2024, the Appellate Court of Illinois ruled against Gunnar,
stating that trying on non-prescription sunglasses does not qualify
as receiving medical care in a health care setting.
The ruling emphasized that the term "patient" should be understood
as someone awaiting or receiving medical treatment from a licensed
professional. The court found no basis for extending this
definition to include users of virtual try-on software for
non-prescription products like sunglasses. "An individual who is
trying on nonprescription sunglasses -- unconnected to any specific
medical advice, prescription, or need -- is simply not within this
statutory exclusion," wrote Justice Mikva in the opinion.
Attorneys representing Marino include Gary M. Klinger from Milberg
Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and Brandon M. Wise along
with Domenica M. Russo from Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise
LLP. Richard J. Miller from Miller Law Firm P.C., represents Gunnar
Optiks LLC. The case is presided over by Judge Anna Loftus under
Case ID No. 22 CH 06182. [GN]
HEARST TELEVISION: Therrien Seeks to Impound Exhibits
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES THERRIEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HEARST TELEVISION, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998-RGS (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order impounding:
(i) Exhibits 3-5, 13-44, 46-48, and 52-54 of the Declaration of
Yitzchak Kopel in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification;
(ii) the Declaration of Dr. Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez in Support
of
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification;
(iii) portions of the Kopel Declaration that rely on or cite to
the
aforementioned documents;
(iv) portions of the Declaration of Plaintiff Charles Therrien
in
Support of Class Certification that rely on or cite to the
aforementioned documents; and
(v) portions of the Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law that rely on
or
cite to the aforementioned documents.
The Plaintiff thus requests that an Order be issued by the Court
and that Order remain in effect until such time that it be lifted
by further order of the Court, and that the papers be kept in the
Clerk's non-public information file during any post-impoundment
period.
Exhibits 3 and 16-43 are true and correct copies of documents
bearing the respective Bates Nos. BRAZE_00005 and HTV_0000232-243.
These contain CSV files in their native formats with details of
Defendant’s users and their personal details.
Exhibit 4 to the Kopel Declaration is the Deposition Transcript of
Michael Rosellini which has been marked "Highly Confident –
Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to section 2.3 of the Protective
Order.
Exhibits 13 and 15 are true and correct copies of the documents
bearing the respective Bates Nos. HTV_0000246-51 and
HTV_0000232-43, both agreements for marketing and technological
services between Braze, Inc. and Defendant.
Portions of the Therrien Declaration have been redacted because
they contain personally identifiable information such as
Plaintiff's email address. These portions have been redacted as
they constitute private, protected information
Hearst is a global, diversified information, services and media
company with operations.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J7zCIS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Victoria X. Zhou, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
vzhou@bursor.com
- and -
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
HEARST TV: Therrien Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES THERRIEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HEARST TELEVISION, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998-RGS (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for
class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
Hearst is a global, diversified information, services and media
company with operations.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yzyJCO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Victoria X. Zhou, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
vzhou@bursor.com
- and -
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
HILLSIDE CAR: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------
CESAR HERNANDEZ, JOSE ARGUETA, PEDRO LAINEZ, FRANKLIN MARTINEZ,
MAURO SALAS, MARIANO ESCOBAR HERNANDEZ, and FITHGERALD KWABENA
SEKYERE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HILLSIDE CAR CARE, INC. d/b/a HILLSIDE CAR WASH AND
10 MINUTE OIL CHANGE, BALJIT SINGH, and SABIN SINGH, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-09038 (D.N.J., September 9, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
unlawful retention of tips, and unlawful retention of gratuities.
The Plaintiffs are former and/or present workers of the Defendants
who have performed work such as washing, cleaning, drying and
detailing cars, trucks and other vehicles, and other non-managerial
car-wash-related work, from August 6, 2019, through the present.
Hillside Car Care, Inc., doing business as Hillside Car Wash and 10
Minute Oil Change, is a provider of car washing services, with its
principal place of business in Hillside, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Avi Mermelstein, Esq.
ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 490-3600
Facsimile: (212) 682-0278
Email: avi@adklawfirm.com
HSBC BANK: Must File Opposition to Class Cert Bid by Oct. 15
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY NI, on behalf of
herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. HSBC BANK
USA, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-00309-AS-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katharine Parker entered an order that no conference is necessary
to resolve the dispute:
-- By Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff shall provide dates
and
times for Defendant's noticed depositions pursuant to the
undersigned's most recent order at ECF No. 256.
-- Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification
will
be due by Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2024.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF
No. 257.
HSBC Bank offers personal banking, wealth management, loans,
savings accounts, leasing, and insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FWke0r at no extra
charge.[CC]
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Oct. 9 Class Cert Filing Extension Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EL PASO FIREMEN &
POLICEMEN’S PENSION FUND, SAN ANTONIO FIRE & POLICE PENSION FUND,
AND INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. INNOVAGE HOLDING CORP., MAUREEN
HEWITT, BARBARA GUTIERREZ, JOHN ELLIS BUSH, ANDREW CAVANNA,
CAROLINE DECHERT, EDWARD KENNEDY, JR., PAVITHRA MAHESH, THOMAS
SCULLY, MARILYN TAVENNER, SEAN TRAYNOR, RICHARD ZORETIC, WELSH,
CARSON, ANDERSON & STOWE, APAX PARTNERS, L.P., J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED,
WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., PIPER SANDLER & CO., CAPITAL ONE
SECURITIES, INC., LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK
& CO., LLC, and ROBERTS & RYAN INVESTMENTS, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-02770-WJM-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting an extension of the deadline to file a
reply in support of the motion for class certification currently
set for Sept. 18, 2024 to Oct. 9, 2024.
Given the five-week shift in the deadline for Defendants'
opposition brief, to have sufficient time to prepare the reply in
support of class certification, including a reply report from Lead
Plaintiffs' expert, Lead Plaintiffs request a three-week extension
of the deadline to file a reply to the motion for class
certification, shifting that date from Sept. 18, 2024, to Oct. 9,
2024.
This is shorter than the five-week extension provided to the
Defendants.
Lead Plaintiffs make this request without prejudice to their
ability to seek further extension if necessary.
Good cause further exists because no prior extension of the
deadline to file a reply in support of the motion for class
certification has been sought.
On Feb 20, 2024, the parties filed a proposed scheduling order.
Magistrate Judge Prose entered the scheduling order for this action
on Feb. 26, 2024, and an amended scheduling order on Mar. 27, 2024,
both of which set July 19, 2024 as the deadline to file an
opposition to the motion for class certification and Sept. 18, 2024
as the deadline to file a reply in support of the motion for class
certification.
InnovAge manages and provides a range of medical and ancillary
services for seniors.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2UUir9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julie G. Reiser, Esq.
Molly Bowen, Esq.
Jan E. Messerschmidt, Esq.
Brendan R. Schneiderman, Esq.
Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: jreiser@cohenmilstein.com
mbowen@cohenmilstein.com
jmesserschmidt@cohenmilstein.com
bschneiderman@cohenmilstein.com
cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Cecil E. Morris, Esq.
Adrian P. Castro, Esq.
FAIRFIELD AND WOODS, P.C.
1801 California Street, Suite 2600
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 830-2400
Facsimile: (303) 830-1033
E-mail: cmorris@fwlaw.com
acastro@fwlaw.com
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Oct. 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McLeod v. Innovage Holding
Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02770 (D. Colo., Filed Oct. 14,
2021), the Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply in
support of motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs are granted leave, for good cause shown, to file
said reply on or before October 9, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the securities fraud.
InnovAge manages and provides a range of medical and ancillary
services.[CC]
INTERNATIONAL STAR: Sanchez Seeks More Time to Complete Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHELL SANCHEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
INTERNATIONAL STAR REGISTRY OF ILLINOIS, LTD, Case No.
1:24-cv-20083-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiff to complete all
class discovery and file her motion for class certification,
through and including Jan. 18, 2025.
Good cause exists for the requested extension, as the Plaintiff has
diligently sought class discovery (1) directly from the Defendant
on June 20, 2024; (2) via subpoena to Twilio, Inc. on Aug. 14,
2024; and (3) via subpoena to Birdeye, Inc. on Aug. 28, 2024.
To date, the Plaintiff is still gathering the necessary documents
and information needed to move for class certification, and the
Plaintiff has diligently worked to obtain the necessary discovery
in compliance with this Court's Order.
The Plaintiff asserts that additional time is needed to conduct the
extensive class discovery and provide the Court with sufficient
information to conduct its rigorous analysis under Federal Rule
23.
On June 18, 2024, this Court entered its Order Granting in Part the
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgement and permitting the
Plaintiff to proceed with discovery in support of her proposed
motion to certify a class. Pursuant to this Court's Order, the
Plaintiff's current deadline to complete all class discovery and
file her motion for class certification is Sept. 18, 2024.
International Star is an organization which sells the right to
unofficially name stars.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sK7KCS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: 305-479-2299
E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com
JENNIFER COZBY: Hurdsman Files Suit in N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jennifer Cozby, et
al. The case is styled as Rodney Adam Hurdsman, and all others
similarly situated v. Jennifer Cozby, Warden, TDCJ Robertson Unit;
J Back, Grievance Officer, TDCJ; Michael Collier, Investigator,
TDCJ Robertson Unit; Myisha Taylor, Captain of Security, TDCJ
Robertson Unit; Laurent Massuama, Sergeant of Security, TDCJ
Robertson Unit; Manuel Vasquez, Sergeant of Security, TDCJ
Robertson Unit; Kyler McGee, Officer, TDCJ Robertson Unit; Harold
Vernon, Officer, TDCJ Robertson Unit; Shanel Patterson, Safety
Officer, TDCJ Robertson Unit; Jennifer Santos, Safety Officer, TDCJ
Robertson Unit; Janet Nwachukwu, Maintenance Supervisor, TDCJ
Robertson Unit; Albert Pearce, Maintenance Supervisor, TDCJ
Robertson Unit; Case No. 1:24-cv-00147-H (N.D. Tex., Sept. 10,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Pet/Other: Civil Rights
for Prisoner Civil Rights.
Jennifer S Cozby worked as a Warden 2 for the State of Texas and in
2020.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
JEREMY DEWITTE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in US Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as USA v. Dewitte, Case No.
1:24-cv-01249-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E.
Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3BVV1H at no extra
charge.[CC]
JOBBLE INC: Hughes Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Angela Hughes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. JOBBLE, INC., Case No. CJ-2023-373
was removed from the District Court of Canadian County, State of
Oklahoma, to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma on Sept. 9, 2024, and assigned Case No.
5:24-cv-00930-SLP.
The Plaintiff's single-count Petition seeks relief from Defendant,
on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly-situated
persons, for allegedly "sending automated commercial telephonic
sales calls, in the form of text messages, to her cellular
telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other individuals
across Oklahoma" in violation of Oklahoma's Telephone Solicitation
Act ("OTSA").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary Quinn Cooper, Esq.
Kathy R. Neal, Esq.
McAFEE & TAFT, PC
Williams Center Tower II
2 West Second Street, Suite 1100
Tulsa, OK 74103
Email: Maryquinn.cooper@mcafeetaft.com
Kathy.neal@mcafeetaft.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
gam@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL, LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
aravindran@hedinhall.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Aaron C. Tifft, Esq.
HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C.
521 E. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
Tulsa, OK 74120
Phone (918) 594-0400
Facsimile (918) 594-0505
Email: atifft@hallestill.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Hixon, Esq.
Jonathan C. Crafts, Esq.
HACKETT FEINBERG P.C.
155 Federal Street, 9th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone (617) 422-0200
Email: jmh@bostonbusinesslaw.com
jcc@bostonbusinesslaw.com
JOHN CHRISTNER: Stokes Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andre Stokes, individually, on a representative
basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHN
CHRISTNER TRUCKING, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company;
HIRSCHBACH, INC., an Indiana Corporation; HIRSCHBACH MOTOR LINES,
INC., an Iowa Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case
No. CIV SB 2402376 was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 9, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01921.
The First Amended Class Action and Representative PAGA Complaint
asserts six causes of action under California law: Failure to Pay
Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay for Rest and Recovery Periods Under
Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to
Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; and Unfair and Unlawful Competition, with corresponding
claims seeking to recover civil penalties under California's
Private Attorneys General Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Mankin, Esq.
Peter J. Carlson, Esq.
LAUBY, MANKIN & LAUBY LLP
5198 Arlington Avenue, PMB 513
Riverside, CA 92504
Email: brian@lmlfirm.com
peter@lmlfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: 626-795-4700
Fax: 626-795-4790
Email: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
KELLY SERVICES: Crowe Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moira Crowe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. KELLY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04781 (E.D. Pa., Sept.
10, 2024), is brought contending that Defendant unlawfully failed
to pay her and other similarly situated individuals employed in the
position of Talent Advisor, or in positions with similar job
duties, overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA").
The Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40
hours per week but were not properly compensated for their work in
that Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime
premium at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. In this regard, Plaintiff
contends that Defendant unlawfully misclassified her and Class
Plaintiffs as exempt employees under the FLSA and PMWA and failed
to accurately track and pay them for all hours worked. Accordingly,
Plaintiff contends that she and Class Plaintiffs are owed unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, which were denied them as a result
of Defendant's unlawful pay practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant who held the
position of Talent Advisor II.
Kelly Services, Inc., is a for-profit corporation formed in
Delaware with a principal place of business located in Troy,
Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jake Daniel Novelli, Esq.
Michael Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 2000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 267-273-1054
Fax: 215-525-0210
Email: jnovelli@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
KIRIN TRANSPORTATION: Dispositive Bid Practice Due Oct. 6
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wang, et al., v. Kirin
Transportation, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05410 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Nov. 6, 2020), the Hon. Judge Orelia E. Merchant entered an
order that in light of the denial of the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class, the last date to take the first step in dispositive
motion practice is Oct. 6, 2024.
In the absence of the initiation of dispositive motions, the
parties shall file their proposed joint pretrial order by Nov. 4,
2024.
Both of these filings must be prepared in accordance with the
Individual Rules of the assigned District Judge.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Kirin is a transportation company based in Flushing, New York,
specializing in providing transportation services.[CC]
L&R DISTRIBUTORS: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Hearing Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA RYHAL,
individually and on behalf of the putative class, v. L. & R.
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a New York corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-03037-MRA-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an order denying joint
stipulation to continue briefing and hearing on motion for class
certification for lack of good cause shown to modify the Court's
June 27, 2024, Pretrial and Class Certification Scheduling Order.
The Stipulation does not explain what, if any, actions the parties
in this case have taken to "consolidate and/or coordinate" the
actions. The Court notes that the other Class Action was not filed
in this Court as the parties stated in their Stipulation; it was
filed in the Northern District of California.
The parties do not address whether they intend to seek transfer of
this case or, again, what steps they have taken to consolidate the
actions. Mere plans to coordinate do not warrant extending the
class certification briefing schedule.
L & R supplies electronic products, cosmetics, baby goods, hosiery,
and health products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hd9Rfh at no extra
charge.[CC]
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Court Narrows Claims in Stephens Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHELSEY STEPHENS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No.
1:23-cv-04266-MKB-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margo Brodie
entered an order:
-- denying Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under
New
York's General Business Law ("GBL") sections 349 and 350, and
-- granting the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims of breach of
express and implied warranty, her warranty claims under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), and her common law claims
of
fraud and unjust enrichment, and
-- denying Defendant's motion to strike the class action
allegation.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a claim
under GBL sections 349 and 350 and denies Defendant’s motion to
dismiss these claims.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Test
constitutes a "good" within the meaning of New York's UCC, and
therefore cannot state a claim for breach of express or implied
warranty under New York law.
The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff's claims for breach of
express and implied warranties.
The Plaintiff commenced the above-captioned putative class action
against the Defendant on June 9, 2023, bringing claims on behalf of
herself and all persons in the United States and in New York who
purchased Defendant's MaterniT Genome Test, a type of Non-Invasive
Prenatal Testing ("NIPT") aimed at detecting chromosomal
abnormalities as early as nine weeks into a pregnancy.
The Plaintiff brings the claims of breach of express and implied
warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment on behalf of "a class
defined as all persons in the United States who purchased" the Test
(the "Nationwide Class," and together with the New York Subclass,
the "Class").
The Plaintiff Chelsey Stephens resides in Brooklyn, New York. The
Plaintiff asserts her claims on behalf of all persons in the United
States who purchased a Test (the "Nationwide Class"), and a
sub-class of all persons who reside in the State of New York who
purchased a Test (the "New York Subclass").
The Defendant markets, distributes, and sells its Test throughout
the United States and the State of New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yaxXXW at no extra
charge.[CC]
LAHAINA WILDFIRE: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Lahaina Wildfire Litigation, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK (D. Haw.), the Consolidated Class
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their Interim
Class Leadership structure proposed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 23(g) to advance ongoing settlement efforts that are
related to the $4.037 billion global resolution, which promises
expedient and meaningful relief for both individual Plaintiffs and
the Class proposed within the Consolidated Class Action.
This motion is made following multiple individual conferences as
well as collective video conference of counsel pursuant to LR7.8,
which took place on September 3, 2024
On Aug. 8, 2023, the Lahaina Fire devastated West Maui, which
resulted in serious harm to the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
that included displacement of residents and harms to real property,
personal property, and business interests as a result of the fire.
After this Court found jurisdiction over the matter on April 19,
2024, it ordered consolidation of the class action lawsuits into
this single lawsuit: In Re: Lahaina Wildfire Litigation.
The court also instructed Plaintiffs to file a single consolidated
complaint. The Plaintiffs did so on June 4, 2024, filing a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CAC") on behalf of themselves
and a Proposed Class defined as:
"All individuals and businesses that, as of Aug. 8, 2023,
worked
in, did business in, or owned or resided on real property in
West
Maui ZIP Codes 96761, 96767 and suffered real property,
personal
property, business losses, and/or personal injury (excluding
wrongful death) from the Lāhainā Fire."
Additionally, roughly the week before announcement of the Global
Settlement following reports that a deal was near, a new class
action complaint was filed (the "Stover" action) seeking to
represent a new putative class of:
"All persons who, as of August 8, 2023, resided in Lahaina, and
whose residences have been rendered uninhabitable due to the
Lahaina wildfire and who have suffered damages and injury to
person, including wrongful and forcible displacement,
inconvenience, loss of use, relocation expenses, severe mental
anguish, depression, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of
life,
loss of livelihood, and loss of past and future income.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LkDEyJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick Kyle Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KYLE SMITH
604 Ilimano Street
Kailua, HI ‘i 96734
Telephone: (808) 799-5175
E-mail: kyle@mithlawhawaii.com
- and -
Terrance M. Revere, Esq.
Paul V.K. Smith, Esq.
REVERE & ASSOCIATES, LLLC
970 N. Kalaheo, Suite A301
Kailua, HI 96734
Telephone: (808) 791-9550
E-mail: terry@revereandassociates.com
paul@revereandassociates.com
- and -
Richard E. Wilson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD E.
WILSON, LLC
735 Bishop St., Suite 306
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 545-1311
E-mail: rewilsonlaw@yahoo.com
- and -
Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
MaryBeth LippSmith, Esq.
Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq.
Celene Chan Andrews, Esq.
LIPPSMITH LLP
55 Merchant Street, Suite 1850
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
Telephone: (213) 344-1820
Facsimile: (213) 513-2495
E-mail: g@lippsmith.com
mb@lippsmith.com
jla@lippsmith.com
cca@lippsmith.com
- and -
Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq.
Christopher K. Hikida, Esq.
KASDAN TURNER THOMSON BOOTH
LLLC
1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1180
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 369-8393
Facsimile: (808) 369-8392
E-mail: kskasdan@kasdancdlaw.com
chikida@kasdancdlawhawaii.com
- and -
Lexi J. Hazam, Esq.
Patrick I. Andrews, Esq.
Nicholas W. Lee, Esq.
Kelly K. McNabb, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415-956-1000
E-mail: lhazam@lchb.com
pandrews@lchb.com
nlee@lchb.com
kmcnabb@lchb.com
- and -
Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
15 West Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 962-9495
Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
E-mail: rcurtis@foleybezek.com
- and -
Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq.
ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP
32121 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 200
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (818) 851-3850
Facsimile: (818) 851-3851
E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com
LENDUS LLC: Greist Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GREIST, SUSAN
SCHELL, and MELANIE GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. LENDUS, LLC and CROSS COUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC,
Case No. 3:24-cv-02411-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move
the Court on Jan. 9, 2024, for an Order
1. Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action on
behalf of all Loan Assistants and Loan Processors, however
variously titled, employed by LendUs at any time during the
three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit who did not
receive compensation for all of their overtime hours worked.
2. Directing the Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs within 10
days
of the entry of an Order conditionally certifying this action
as
a collective action a putative collective action member list
setting forth, for each individual, their: (1) full name, (2)
job title, (3) dates of employment, (4) last known address,
(5)
last known cell phone number, (6) location of employment, (7)
employee number or ID, (8) social security number (last four
digits only), and (9) last known email address.
3. Authorizing the parties to send Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) (in forms to be approved by the Court and
attached as Exhibit C (mail and e-mail notice) and D (text
notice) to the Declaration of Paolo C. Meireles ("Meireles
Decl."), submitted herewith), and available via website, to
all
potential Opt-In Plaintiffs that they may join this action
and
assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
section 206;
4. Authorizing Plaintiffs to send a reminder notice, in the
forms
Exhibits E (mail and e-mail) and F (text) to Meireles Decl.,
half-way through the sixty (60) day opt-in period; and
5. Extending tolling through the date that Notice is provided to
putative collective action members.
LendUS is an independently owned and operated mortgage lender.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OcHY99 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paolo Meireles, Esq.
Tamra Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Rd, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 982-7935
E-mail: pmeireles@shavitlaw.com
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
— and —
Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
OMNUM LAW APC
4350 Executive Drive, Suite 350
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 539-9767
E-mail: bgaldston@omnumlaw.com
LEXVID SERVICES: Harlos Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Identities
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Caryn Harlos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LEXVID SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01621-LL-MMP
(S.D. Cal., Sept. 11, 2024), is brought for legal and equitable
remedies to redress and put a stop to Defendant's practices of
knowingly disclosing Plaintiff's and its other customers'
identities, their subscriptions, and the titles of the prerecorded
video materials that they purchased to Meta Platforms, Inc.,
formerly known as Facebook, Inc., in violation of the federal Video
Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA").
Over the past two years, Defendant has systematically
transmitted— and continues to transmit today—its customers'
subscription and personally identifying video viewing information
to Meta using a snippet of programming code called the "Meta
Pixel," which Defendant chose to install on its lexvid.com
website.
The information Defendant disclosed, and continues to disclose, to
Meta, via the Meta Pixel it installed on its website, includes a
consumer's Facebook ID ("FID") coupled with their subscription
information and the title of each of the specific videos that the
consumer requested or obtained on Defendant's website.
The Defendant disclosed and continues to disclose that a consumer
purchased a subscription to Defendant's website and its customers'
Private Viewing Information to Meta without asking for, let alone
obtaining, its customers' consent to these practices. The VPPA
clearly prohibits what Defendant has done. The VPPA provides that,
absent the consumer's prior informed, written consent, any "video
tape service provider who knowingly discloses, to any person,
personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such
provider shall be liable to the aggrieved person" for, inter alia,
liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500.00 per violation and
equitable relief.
Accordingly, on behalf of herself and the putative Class members,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint against Defendant for
intentionally and unlawfully disclosing their subscription and
Personal Viewing Information to Meta, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a consumer of the video products and services
offered on Defendant's lexvid.com website.
The Defendant operates an online digital library of pre-recorded
video materials, where it is engaged in the business of selling,
inter alia, a wide variety of prerecorded video materials to
consumers across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
357 Mission Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com
LIFE EXTENSION.COM: Blind Can't Access Website, Herrera Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIFE EXTENSION.COM, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-06822 (S.D.N.Y., September 10, 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://www.lifeextension.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.
Life Extension.com, 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
MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL: Hussein Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Betty Hussein, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, a California
Nonprofit Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CV0003571
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Marin, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on Sept. 6, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 3:24-cv-06296-KAW.
The Plaintiff alleges state law claims against Marin General, and
specifically that Marin General violated various sections of the
California Labor Code and engaged in unfair business practices in
violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark S. Posard, Esq.
Nicholas A. Deming, Esq.
Matthew S. Vesterdahl, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 595-2000
Facsimile: (916) 920-4402
Email: mposard@grsm.com
ndeming@grsm.com
mvesterdahl@grsm.com
MEDIC AMBULANCE: Wallace Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Natisha Wallace, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. MEDIC
AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. CU24-05970 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solano,
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on Sept. 9, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-02459-DAD-JDP.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following causes of action:
in violation of California Labor Codes for unpaid overtime; unpaid
meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum
wages; final wages not timely paid; non-compliant wage statements;
unreimbursed business expenses; Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 ("PAGA"); and violation of California Business and Professions
Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Corey J. Cabral, Esq.
Dalia Z. Khatib, Esq.
CDF LABOR LAW LLP
900 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 361-0991
Email: ccabral@cdflaborlaw.com
dkhatib@cdflaborlaw.com
MEDICAL COLLEGE: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Reginald Smith, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN,
INC. and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-01019 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on Sept. 6, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-12298-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Other Contract.
The Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) -- https://www.mcw.edu/ --
is a private medical school, pharmacy school, and graduate school
of sciences in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
MEDSTAR HEALTH: Memo on Final approval of Class Settlement Entered
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watson v. MedStar Health,
Inc et al. (MedStar ERISA Litigation), Case No. 1:20-cv-02250-JKB
(D. Md.), the Hon. Judge James Bredar entered a memo that the
Plaintiffs motion for final approval of class action settlement and
attorneys' fees, expenses, and case contributing awards will be
granted.
MedStar offers cardiology, cardiac surgery, oncology services,
rehabilitation, neurosciences, orthopedic surgery, women's
services, and emergency and trauma services.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dnN5qJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
MEDSTAR HEALTH: Settlement Class in Reed Suit Gets Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reed v. MedStar Health,
Inc. et al. (MedStar ERISA Litigation), Case No. 1:20-cv-01984-JKB
(D. Md.), the Hon. Judge James Bredar entered an order certifying
Settlement Class:
"All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during
the
Class Period (July 6, 2014) through the date the Preliminary
Approval Order is entered by the Court), including any
Beneficiary
of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time
during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person
subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated
in
the Plan At any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the
Settlement Class are Defendants and their Beneficiaries."
The amount of the Settlement – $11,800,000 is fair, reasonable
and adequate.
MedStar offers cardiology, cardiac surgery, oncology services,
rehabilitation, neurosciences, orthopedic surgery, women's
services, and emergency and trauma services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6GHmqE at no extra
charge.[CC]
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Wadeea Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mahshid Wadeea, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24CU000597C
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California on Sept. 6, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-01587-JAH-DDL.
The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, penalties, injunctive relief,
and other relief from MBUSA alleging claims under California's Song
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Unfair Competition Law, as well
as California-law express and implied warranty claims, unjust
enrichment claims, and claims for fraudulent concealment.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Shawn R. Obi, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
Phone: (213) 615-1700
Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
Email: sobi@winston.com
- and -
Troy M. Yoshino, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94111-5840
Phone: (415) 591-1000
Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
Email: tyoshino@winston.com
MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC: Arraf Sues Over Violation of Voting Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huwaida Arraf, Jennifer Kirby, and Madeleine Tocco, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated v. MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC
PARTY, LAVORA BARNES, in her official capacity as Chair of the
Michigan Democratic Party, and CHRISTINE JENSEN, in her official
capacity as executive director of the Michigan Democratic Party,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00933 (W.D. Mich., Sept. 11, 2024), is brought for
Declaratory and Injunctive relief, against the Defendants due to
serious irregularities which marred the voting and reporting
processes and violating Plaintiffs' rights under the United States
Constitution.
On August 24, 2024, the MDP held its fall nominating convention to,
among other things, nominate candidates for several statewide
offices including the University of Michigan Board of Regents.
Multiple, serious irregularities marred the voting and reporting
processes violating Plaintiffs' rights under the United States
Constitution, the Michigan Constitution, and the laws of the State
of Michigan. Plaintiffs brought these irregularities to the
attention of the MDP, but were ignored. All efforts to compel the
MDP to rectify the matter have failed, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are members of the Michigan Democratic Party (MDP).
MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY (MDP) is a political party, duly
incorporated in the State of Michigan and having its principal
office located in the City of Lansing, County of Ingham.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Huwaida Arraf, Esq.
45836 Eden Drive
Macomb, MI 48044
Phone: 917.588.3482
Email: huwaida.arraf@gmail.com
MIGHTY LUCKY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Igartua Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. MIGHTY LUCKY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06753 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 5, 204), alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant owns a dispensary located at 259 Bowery, New York,
N.Y. 10002, and owns and maintains the Website, www.mighty-lucky.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website,
www.mighty-lucky.com and therefore its denial of the
goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using his computer.
The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired," as
Plaintiff's central visual acuity with correction is less than or
equal to 20/200. Some sight-impaired individuals who meet this
definition have limited vision while others have zero vision.
The Defendant owns a dispensary in Farmingdale, New York, and
maintains the Website, www.happydaysli.com offering great parking
and fast pickup.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 5, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0TDPeh
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
10 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
MKS INSTRUMENTS: Valero Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eduardo Domingo Valero, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MKS INSTRUMENTS, a
Massachusetts Corporation; NEWPORT CORPORATION, a Nevada
Corporation; BHAVIK PATEL, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2024-01414476-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Sept. 9, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01948.
In this action, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts ten causes of action
for: "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 Section 227.3"; and "Unfair Competition."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Afar, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: mafar@seyfarth.com
MONEY SOURCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Date Revised to Jan. 20, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Natasha Hiller, v. Money
Source Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-00235-DLR (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge Douglas Rayes entered a revised scheduling order as
follows:
1. The Parties have exchanged Initial Disclosure Statements
pursuant to Rule 26.
2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed
by
Jan. 20, 2025.
3. The deadline for completing fact discovery, including all
disclosure required under Rule 26(a)(3), shall be 90 days
after
a ruling on class certification.
4. The Plaintiff(s) shall disclose expert testimony in support
of
class certification pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure no later than Oct. 4, 2024.
Money Source offers equipment and truck financing, working capital,
and small business loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=epaaCB at no extra
charge.[CC]
MONTE NIDO & AFFILIATES: Suit Filed in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monte Nido &
Affiliates Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Jane Doe,
individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated
individuals v. Monte Nido & Affiliates Holdings, LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-06393-DMR (N.D. Cal., Sept. 11, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Monte Nido is a national mental health provider committed to
eradicating eating disorders by offering industry-leading care to
adults and adolescents of all genders in a healing
environment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq.
Daniel Jay Mogin, Esq.
MOGINRUBIN LLP
4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (619) 687-6611
Email: tlacomb@moginrubin.com
dmogin@moginrubin.com
MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Court Stays Costello Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR COSTELLO,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
MOUNTAIN LAUREL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00035-TAV-CRW
(E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Varlan entered an order
granting Defendant's motion to stay.
This case is stayed pending the Sixth Circuit's decision in In re
State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company.
The Defendant is ordered to notify the Court within 10 days of the
Sixth Circuit's decision.
Within 21 days of the Sixth Circuit's decision in In re State Farm
Mutual Auto Insurance Company, No. 23-0508 (6th Cir. Apr. 30,
2024), both parties shall file any desired supplements based upon
that decision.
The Court finds the Clippinger Appeal to be potentially dispositive
by way of class certification, and in turn, this factor favors a
stay in this case.
On April 7, 2022, the Plaintiff, individually and behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed the instant lawsuit, challenging
the Defendant's alleged method of estimating the actual cash value
("ACV") of her total-loss vehicle.
On Nov. 10, 2023, the Plaintiff moved for class certification.
Mountain Laurel provides property and casualty insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YEVRfd at no extra
charge.[CC]
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Robinson Seeks Rightful Share of Profits
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENARD ROBINSON; BRAYLON EDWARDS; MICHAEL MARTIN; SHAWN CRABLE,
Individually and on behalf of themselves and former University of
Michigan football players similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION aka "NCAA"; BIG TEN
NETWORK "aka" BTN, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-12355-TGB-DRG (E.D.
Mich., September 9, 2024), seeks to compensate former Michigan
players who have been denied of their rightful share of the profits
that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its
partners have generated.
The Plaintiffs have never received compensation and were not
allowed to capitalize monetarily for the use of their names, image,
and likeness and lost out on several million dollars. Moreover, the
NCAA has conspired with conferences, colleges, licensing companies,
and apparel companies to fix the price of student-athlete labor
near zero and make student-athletes unwitting and uncompensated
lifetime pitchmen for the NCAA. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek to
address this systemic injustice by holding the NCAA, its partners,
and affiliates accountable for their actions.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, IN, NCAA oversees more than 1,100
member schools, including the University of Michigan, and regulates
intercollegiate athletics. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James R. Acho, Esq.
CUMMINGS, McCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, PLC
17436 College Parkway, 3rd Floor
Livonia, MI 48152
Telephone: (734) 261-2400
Facsimile: (248) 261-4510
E-mail: jacho@cmda-law.com
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Tosses Hughes' Bid to Stay Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON HUGHES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, Case No. 1:22-cv-10743-JLR (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rochon entered an order:
-- denying the Plaintiff's request to stay;
-- denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1);
and
-- granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 82
and close the case.
The Court finds that the interests of Defendant, the Court, and the
public in resolving cases in a reasonably timely fashion outweigh
countervailing considerations. Therefore, the Court denies
Plaintiff's stay request.
Mr. Hughes sues the National Football League under the Video
Privacy Protection Act (the "VPPA").
The Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint on Nov. 27, 2023.
SAC. He asserts a single claim for relief under the VPPA.
He also seeks to represent a proposed class of:
"all persons in the United States with a digital subscription
to
an online website or product owned and/or operated by the
Defendant that had their Personal Viewing Information disclosed
to
Facebook by the Defendant."
The Plaintiff, an Illinois resident, has been a digital subscriber
of NFL.com from 2020 to the present.
NFL is a major American sports league headquartered in New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wWa291 at no extra
charge.[CC]
NATIONAL GRID: Parties Ask Court to Adopt Proposed Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NIGHTINGALE, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL
GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., FIRST CONTACT LLC, and IQOR US
INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-12341-NMG (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order adopting the proposed schedule to govern
the Court's decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
during the remanded proceedings.
Event Date
Plaintiff to file brief in support of Oct. 11, 2024
Motion for Class Certification
Defendants to file brief in opposition Nov. 11, 2024
to Motion for Class Certification
Plaintiff to file reply brief (if any) Nov. 25, 2024
Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for At this Court's
Class Certification convenience
Rule 16 Conference At this Court's
convenience after
issuance of this
Courts decision on
class
certification
On April 6 and May 19, 2023, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification and granted Defendants' motion for summary
judgment, respectively.
On July 9, 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated both
orders and remanded the issue of class certification to this Court.
On Aug. 29, 2024, the First Circuit denied Defendants' petition for
en banc hearing/rehearing.
As such, on remand, the Parties and this Court must now address
class
certification and either an individual or class-wide trial on the
merits.
National Grid provides utility services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ItTto at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
Stephen Taylor, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
taylors@lemberglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David G. Thomas, Esq.
Angela Bunnell, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
One International Place, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 310-6000
E-mail: david.thomas@gtlaw.com
bunnella@gtlaw.com
NBI INC: Harper Sues Over Privacy Protection Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Kendra Harper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NBI, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00644 (W.D. Wis., Sept. 11,
2024), is brought for legal and equitable remedies to redress and
put a stop to Defendant NBI, Inc.'s practices of knowingly
disclosing Plaintiff's and its other customers' identities, their
subscription purchases, and the titles of the prerecorded video
materials that they obtained to Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly
known as Facebook, Inc., in violation of the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act ("VPPA").
Over the past two years, Defendant has systematically transmitted
(and continues to transmit today) its customers' personally
identifying subscription and video viewing information to Meta
using a snippet of programming code called the "Meta Pixel," which
Defendant chose to install on its nbi-sems.com website.
The information Defendant disclosed, and continues to disclose, to
Meta, via the Meta Pixel it installed on its website, includes a
consumer's Facebook ID ("FID") coupled with a subscription purchase
and the title of each of the specific videos that the consumer
requested or obtained on Defendant's website.
The Defendant disclosed and continues to disclose its customers'
subscription purchases and Private Viewing Information to Meta
without asking for, let alone obtaining, its customers' consent to
these practices. The VPPA clearly prohibits what Defendant has
done.
Accordingly, on behalf of herself and the putative Class members,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint against Defendant for
intentionally and unlawfully disclosing their subscription and
Personal Viewing Information to Meta, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a consumer of the video products and services
offered on Defendant's nbi-sems.com website.
The Defendant operates an online digital library of pre-recorded
video materials, where it is engaged in the business of selling,
inter alia, a wide variety of prerecorded video materials to
consumers across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Julie E. Holt, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610
Miami, FL 33131-3302
Phone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com
jholt@hedinllp.com
NEW ERA: Zarate Must File Class Certification Bid by Nov. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Claudio Zarate v. New Era
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09806-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Robyn Tarnofsky entered a case management order:
1) The parties shall provide joint updates on the status of
discovery on Nov. 4, 2024, Dec. 18, 2024, and Jan. 18, 2025;
2) The Plaintiff will file an anticipated motion for class
certification by Nov. 4, 2024, with Defendants' opposition,
if
any, due by Nov. 18, 2024, and Plaintiff's reply, if any, due
by
Dec. 18, 2024; and
3) The parties would like a referral to Court-annexed mediation
after the Court's decision on the class certification
motion.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ajipny at no extra
charge.[CC]
NUK USA: Kouyate Sues Over Pacifiers' "100% Sustainable" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MOUSSA KOUYATE, GENESIS JOHNSON, ANGEL BENITEZ, and ELIZABETH
ZMRHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NUK USA LLC, GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS INC.
and NEWELL BRANDS INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04020-AT (N.D.
Ga., September 9, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, violations of the Georgia Fair Business
Practices Act, Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False
Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition Law, the New
York's General Business Law, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the NUK for
Nature 100% Sustainable Silicone Pacifier. According to the
complaint, the Defendants marketed the product as a "100%"
environmentally friendly pacifier option with representations like
"100% sustainable." However, this is an overstatement of
environmental benefit and specifically, an overstatement of the
product's sustainability. The product may be made of 100% silicone,
but neither the silicone in the pacifier nor the product as a whole
is 100% sustainable or 100% durable. The pacifier and the materials
used to make it cause damage to the environment and cannot be used
for a long period of time. As a result of the Defendants' false
representations, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers
purchased the product at a premium price, alleges the suit.
NUK USA LLC is a manufacturer of children's products, with its
principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
Graco Children's Products Inc. is a manufacturer of children's
products, with its principal place of business in Atlanta,
Georgia.
Newell Brands Inc. is a manufacturer of children's products, with
its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (678) 642-2503
Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
Benjamin R. Cooper, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
benjamin.cooper@zimmreed.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
JENNINGS PLLC
P.O. Box 25972
Little Rock, AR 72221
Telephone: (501) 247-6267
Email: chris@jenningspllc.com
tyler@jenningspllc.com
OFFICE DEPOT: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Office Depot Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-03630-PJS-LIB (D.
Minn., Sept. 12, 2024), is brought arising because Defendant's
Website (www.officedepot.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are
blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general
non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and
auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In
addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a
companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act
(MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content Defendant makes available to its sighted
Website users.
Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind.
The Defendant offers office, home supplies, and accessories for
sale including, but not limited to, ink, paper, computers,
furniture, cleaning supplies, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
ON INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Sumlin Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. On, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06805
(S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
shoes on Defendant's website. Despite his efforts, however,
Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted
individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for
Defendant's violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
Headquartered in Portland, OR, On, Inc. owns and maintains the
website, On.com,which provides consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including, the ability to view athletic shoes
and performance sportswear. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Briefing on Dismissal Bid Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Outlook Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2024, that the securities class
suit dismissal motion briefing is ongoing in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On November 3, 2023, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The class action complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act
in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made
by the Company related to its BLA during the period from August 3,
2021through August 29, 2023.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that it violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by
failing to disclose that there was an alleged lack of evidence
supporting ONS-5010 as a treatment for wet AMD and that its and/or
its manufacturing partner had deficient CMC controls for ONS-5010,
which remained unresolved at the time its BLA was re-submitted to
the FDA and, as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve its BLA,
and that its stock price dropped when such information was
disclosed.
The plaintiffs in the class action complaint seek damages and
interest, and an award of reasonable costs, including attorneys'
fees.
The parties are in the process of briefing a motion to dismiss the
complaint.
Outlook Therapeutics, Inc. is a late clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing and
commercializing monoclonal antibodies for various ophthalmic
indications.[BN]
PACIFICORP: McGuire Suit Removed to D. Oregon
---------------------------------------------
The case styled as Greg McGuire and Katherine McGuire, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACIFICORP, an
Oregon corporation; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., a Minnesota
corporation, Case No. 24CV36263 was removed from the State of
Oregon, Multnomah County Circuit Court, to the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon on Sept. 9, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01507-IM.
The Complaint contains claims for unjust enrichment, trespass,
breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and Plaintiffs seek injunctive and
equitable relief in addition to monetary relief.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dallas DeLuca, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Lovinger, Esq.
Crippen, Esq.
MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97201
Phone: (503) 295-3085
Email: DallasDeLuca@MarkowitzHerbold.com
JeffreyLovinger@MarkowitzHerbold.com
KelsieCrippen@MarkowitzHerbold.com
- and -
Alexandra M. Shulman, Esq.
Michael J. Sandmire, Esq.
BUCHALTER
805 SW Broadway, Suite 1500
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: (503) 226-1191
Facsimile: (503) 226-0079
Email: ashulman@buchalter.com
msandmire@buchalter.com
PALL CORPORATION: Adams Files FLSA Suit in D. Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pall Corporation. The
case is styled as Matthew Adams, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals v. Pall Corporation, Case No.
3:24-cv-01467 (D. Conn., Sept. 12, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Pall Corporation, headquartered in Port Washington, New York and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Danaher Corporation since 2015, is a
global supplier of filtration, separations and purification
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Eugene Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSEMORE, LLC
750 Main Street, Suite 904
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: (860) 522-8888
Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
PARAMOUNT EXCLUSIVE: Deguchi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paramount Exclusive
Insurance Services, et al. The case is styled as Casey Keisuke
Deguchi, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Paramount Exclusive Insurance Services, Shahab Kohen,
Does 1 through 50, Case No. 24STCV23557 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Sept. 12, 2024).
Paramount Exclusive Insurance Services --
https://www.paramountexclusiveins.com/ -- are an all-inclusive,
full service insurance agency that provides quotes and insurance
assessments for business and personal needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Young K. Park, Esq.
JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C.
9575 Bolsa Ave
Westminster, CA 92683
Phone: 323-922-2000
Fax: 323-922-2000
Email: young@justiceforworkers.com
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Court Consolidates Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Peloton Interactive, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 22, 2024 that on May 5, 2022, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
consolidated two putative securities class action lawsuits against
the Company and certain of the company's officers under the caption
"City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System et al. v. Peloton
Interactive, Inc., et al.," Case No. 21-CV-09582-ALC-OTW and
appointed Robeco Capital Growth Funds SICAV – Robeco Global
Consumer Trends as lead plaintiff in the class action.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2023, purportedly
on behalf of a class consisting of those individuals who purchased
or otherwise acquired our common stock between February 5, 2021 and
January 19, 2022, and defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on
June 16, 2023. Briefing on defendants. motion to dismiss the
amended complaint was completed on August 18, 2023.
Lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on June 25, 2022,
alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements about demand for the company's products and the reasons
for the company's inventory growth, and engaged in improper trading
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act.
Peloton is the world's largest interactive fitness platform with a
loyal community of members who have Peloton accounts through a paid
Connected Fitness Subscription or a paid Peloton App Membership.
The company pioneered connected, technology-enabled fitness with
the creation of its interactive fitness equipment and the streaming
of immersive, instructor-led boutique classes to its members
anytime, anywhere.
PENNEY OPCO: Arguelles Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOELLE ARGUELLES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PENNEY OPCO, LLC, d/b/a JC PENNEY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00981-BAS-DDL
(S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, certifying a
proposed Class consisting of:
"All individuals who, between May 26, 2022 and present,
inclusive
(the "Class Period"): (1) communicated with Defendant via the
Chat
Feature on the website www.jcpenney.com; and (2) either (a) to
initiate the chat session entered a telephone number that
includes
a California area code (i.e., 619, 559, 628, 650, 657, 661,
408,
415, 424, 442, 626, 949, 530, 714, 562, 510, 369, 350, 341,
323,
310, 209, 213, 669, 707, 747, 760, 805, 818, 820, 831, 840,
858,
909, 916, 925, 951 or 279) or (b) engaged with the chat feature
from a device whose assigned IP Address indicates the
individual
was located in California."
A hearing on this matter is set for October 7, 2024.
The basis for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is that
all the standards for certification in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) have been satisfied.
The proposed Class satisfies each of Rule 23(a)'s prerequisites to
certification.
The Plaintiff's claims are also typical of those of the other Class
members (typicality), and her and her counsel are more than
adequate to represent the interests of the absent members of the
Class (adequacy).
The Plaintiff's Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and
Motion, the Declaration of Andrew R. Tate, the Declaration of
Plaintiff Noelle Arguelles, the Joint Declaration of Ronald A.
Marron and Brandon Wise, and Plaintiff's Request for Judicial
Notice, filed concurrently herewith, the pleadings and other papers
on file in this matter, and upon any evidence or argument that may
be presented at or before the hearing on this Motion.
This Motion takes place following a meet and confer between counsel
which took place on July 17, 2024, and August 30, 2024.
Penney is an American department store chain.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dwJEX5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Andrew R. Tate, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR
KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
atate@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
PENNEY OPCO: JCPenney's Retail Discounts "False," Jones Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELLEN JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PENNEY OPCO LLC and DOE DEFENDANTS 1 to 5,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02468-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal., September 10,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
California Civil Code and California Business and Professions
Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
massive false discount advertising scheme across nearly all of
their products on both JCPenney website and retail stores.
Specifically, the Defendants advertise perpetual, never-ending
discounts for approximately 90 percent of their products.
JCPenney's discounts typically range from between 25 percent to 70
percent off of JCPenney's advertised list prices for the products.
The Defendants represent these list prices to be the regular and
normal prices of the products, and the list prices function as
reference prices from which the advertised discounts are
calculated. The Defendants advertised discounts and reference
prices are false because they rarely, if ever, offers their
products at their advertised list price. The Defendants' deceptive
pricing scheme is intended to trick consumers into believing that
the products are worth, and have a market value equal to, the
inflated list price, and that the lower advertised "sale" price
represents a special bargain, the suit alleges.
Penney Opco LLC is an operator of JCPenney retail stores in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120
Bellevue, WA 98005
Telephone: (425) 233-8650
Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
Email: dan@hattislaw.com
pkl@hattislaw.com
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Bid to Dismiss & Compel Arbitration Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN BOSHEARS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PEOPLECONNECT, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01222-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Marsha Pechman entered an order denying PeopleConnect's
motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all
counsel.
The Court said that PeopleConnect cannot compel Boshears's claims
to mandatory arbitration because he was opted out according to
PeopleConnect's own contract. But even if Boshears is still bound
by the terms, PeopleConnect fails to show that he conveyed
sufficient authority to agree to arbitrate his claims or that he
ratified his attorneys’ unauthorized actions.
On Oct. 29, 2021, Boshears filed this lawsuit, alleging that
Classmates.com impermissibly used his persona to advertise its
subscription services in violation of the Indiana Right of
Publicity Act, Ind. Code. section 32-36-1-8; and as a common law
tort of misappropriation of his name and likeness.
On Aug. 21, 2023, before the Ninth Circuit issued the mandate,
Attorneys Borrelli and Osborn sent an opt-out notice to
PeopleConnect on behalf of themselves and Boshears.
PeopleConnect owns and operates Classmates.com, a website marketing
access to and reprints of over 400,000 high school yearbooks.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yKEakR at no extra
charge.[CC]
PERCEPTA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHATINNA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. PERCEPTA, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-12343-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich., September 9, 2024) seeks to
recover for Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and alleged contractual obligations (or unjust
enrichment if no contract is found), and other appropriate rules,
regulations, statutes, and ordinances.
According to the complaint, the Defendant employed Plaintiff as an
hourly Customer Care Representative (CCR). Defendant assigns CCRs,
like Plaintiff, to answer customer calls from Defendant's clients.
Allegedly, Defendant paid Plaintiff for 40 hours of work. However,
the hours Defendant paid Plaintiff did not include the boot-up and
call ready work. Moreover, the Defendant breached its contract with
Plaintiff and the Class to pay their hourly rate for each hour
worked.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that her rights, the
rights of the FLSA Collective, and the rights of the Breach of
Contract Class were violated and seeks to recover an award of
unpaid wages and overtime premiums, liquidated damages, penalties,
injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and any other remedies.
Headquartered in Michigan, Percepta, LLC provides customer service
and support to the automotive and mobility industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Ave, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
PETER HYDE: Civil Standing Order Entered in Dundas Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANGO DUNDAS, LLC, et al.,
v. PETER HYDE DUNDAS, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07543-HDV-AGR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan Vera entered a civil standing order:
-- The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with
Local
Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service.
-- Any answers filed in state court must be refiled in this Court
as
a supplement to the Notice of Removal. Any pending motions must
be
re-noticed in accordance with the Local Rules.
-- All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate
Judge. Proposed protective orders must also be submitted to the
Magistrate Judge.
-- In addition to the requirements of Local Rule 15-1, all motions
to
amend pleadings shall: (1) state the effect of the amendment;
(2)
be serially numbered to differentiate the amendment from
previous
amendments; and (3) identify the pages, line numbers, and
wording
of any proposed change or addition of material.
-- Motions for Class Certification. Counsel in putative class
actions
shall commence litigation promptly and begin discovery
immediately
so that the motion for class certification can be filed
expeditiously.
-- Motions for Summary Judgment. No party may file more than one
motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56,
regardless
of whether such motion is denominated a motion for summary
judgment or summary adjudication.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1lQlYL at no extra
charge.[CC]
PLURALSIGHT INC: $20-Mil. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC announces that the United States
District Court for the District of Utah has approved a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Class A
common stock of Pluralsight, Inc. (NASDAQ: PS):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION;
(II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons who purchased or acquired Pluralsight, Inc.
("Pluralsight") Class A common stock from January 16, 2019 to July
31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby
(the "Class").1
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, AS YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah (the "Court"), that the above-captioned securities
class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $20,000,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.
A hearing will be held on February 4, 2025 at 10:30 a.m., before
the Honorable David Barlow either in person at the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah, Orrin G. Hatch U.S. Courthouse,
Courtroom 8.100, 351 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101,
or by telephone or videoconference, to determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated May
1, 2024 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to a
payment from the Settlement. If you have not yet received the
Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may
obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator at Pluralsight Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic
Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063;
calling toll-free (866) 274-4004; or emailing
info@strategicclaims.net. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can
also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.pluralsightsecuritieslitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
to the Claims Administrator postmarked (or submitted online) no
later than December 21, 2024. If you are a Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a
payment from the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than January 14, 2025, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Excluding
yourself is the only option that may allow you to be part of any
other current or future lawsuit against Defendants or any of the
other Released Defendants' Parties concerning the claims being
resolved by the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than January 14, 2025, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or
their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or
Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Pluralsight Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
Toll-free: (866) 274-4004
info@strategicclaims.net
www.pluralsightsecuritieslitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Attn: Carol V. Gilden
190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1705
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel.: (312) 357-0370
Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
By Order of the Court
1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Proposed
Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II) Settlement Hearing; and
(III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice"), available at
www.pluralsightsecuritieslitigation.com. [GN]
PNC BANK: Acampora Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Anthony Acampora, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. PNC BANK, Case No. 2:24-cv-01296 (W.D. Pa., Sept. 11,
2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), and an individual and class action under the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL"), and FRCP 23 to recover damages for non-payment
of overtime wages.
The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in workweeks.
Despite this, Plaintiff normally recorded only 35-40 hours worked
in most workweeks. The other MLOs regularly have worked more than
40 hours in workweeks. Despite this, the other MLOs have normally
recorded only 35-40 hours in most workweeks. The Defendant knew
that Plaintiff was working more hours than recorded in the
company-wide time-keeping system. The Defendant knew this based on
the digital work applications Plaintiff was required to use in
performance of his duties. The Plaintiff was entitled to payment of
overtime at one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay for the
hours worked in excess of forty hours in workweeks, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant PNC Bank as a Mortgage Loan
Officer (hereinafter referred to as "MLO") from his home from
November 2018 until September 23, 2022.
PNC Bank, a national banking and financial services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LLC
First & Market Building
100 First Avenue, Suite 650
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 227-0763
Fax: (412) 774-1994
Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com
- and -
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 300-0375
Fax: (212) 481-1333
Email: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
PORT IMPERIAL: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Mayors Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON MAYORS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PORT IMPERIAL FERRY CORP., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-06815 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay timely wages in violation
of the New York Labor Law.
Mr. Mayors was employed by the Defendant as a bus driver from in or
about November 2023 until April 2, 2024.
Port Imperial Ferry Corp. is a private transportation company
headquartered in Weehawken, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
David J. Sack, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: North Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD M. NORTH, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No.
2:20-cv-20190-BRM-JSA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
for an Order certifying this case to proceed as a class action
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23.
Portfolio Recovery is a debt-purchasing company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pCgHQG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Mark Jensen, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
- and -
Scott C. Borison, Esq.
BORISON FIRM LLC
1400 S. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21230
PRESTAMOS CDFI: Marshall Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA MARSHALL, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying the following class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
(b)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Amended
Scheduling Order:
Damages Class:
"all persons and entities in California, Michigan, Arizona,
Utah,
Texas, Indiana, Mississippi and New York (collectively, the
"Class
Member States") who, in 2021, applied for PPP loans with
defendant
Prestamos as the lender for whom the SBA provided a SBA loan
number, and who executed and submitted their Loan Documents and
provided to Prestamos all required loan documentation, but as
to
whom Prestamos both failed to disburse the PPP loan proceeds
and
reported to the SBA that the loan proceeds were disbursed";
and
-- certifying the following class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
(b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
Declaratory Judgment Class:
"all persons and entities in the Class Member States who, in
2021,
applied for PPP loans with defendant Prestamos as the lender
for
whom the SBA provided a SBA loan number, and who executed and
submitted their Loan Documents and provided to Prestamos all
required loan documentation, but as to whom Prestamos both
failed
to disburse the PPP loan proceeds and reported to the SBA that
the
loan proceeds were disbursed."
Excluded from the Classes are defendant Prestamos and its
corporate parent CPLC; any of their affiliates and entities in
which they have a controlling interest; any of their agents and
employees; any Judge to whom this action is assigned; and any
member of such Judge's staff and immediate family."
Prestamos provides small business loans & technical assistance to
entrepreneurs.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kGM5Sc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: llederer@baileyglasser.com
bcohen@baileyglasser.com
mmurphy@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Justin A. Heller, Esq.
Matthew M. Zapala, Esq.
Gregory Zini, Esq.
NOLAN HELLER KAUFFMAN LLP
80 State Street, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518) 449-3300
Facsimile: (518) 432-3123
E-mail: jheller@nhkllp.com
mzapala@nhkllp.com
gzini@nhkllp.com
PROGRESO HONDURAS: Guardado Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA DE LOS SANTOS SANCHEZ GUARDADO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESO HONDURAS
RESTAURANT INC., PROGRESO LATINO GROCERY INC., DENIS PAZ, and
BENIGNO GEOVANY PAZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06335 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 10, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, and failure to provide a wage
notice.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a food preparer, cook,
food server, and customer service attendant, located at 5303 Fort
Hamilton Parkway, Brooklyn, New York and at 4503 Fort Hamilton
Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, from in or around March 2017 until in
or around August 2024.
Progreso Honduras Restaurant Inc. is a restaurant owner and
operator, located at 5303 Fort Hamilton Parkway, Brooklyn, New
York.
Progreso Latino Grocery Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator,
located at 4503 Fort Hamilton Parkway, Brooklyn, 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
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
PROTECH ELECTRONICS: Roberts Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Travis Roberts, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. PROTECH
ELECTRONICS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV18315 was removed from the
Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Sept. 6, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07648.
The Complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay minimum
and straight time wages; failure to pay overtime wages; meal period
violations; rest period violations; wage statement violations;
failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; waiting time
penalties; and unfair business practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
Nancy Nguyen, Esq.
Mayra Negrete, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Phone: +1.714.830.0600
Fax: +1.714.830.0700
Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
nancy.nguyen@morganlewis.com
mayra.negrete@morganlewis.com
RENAL TREATMENT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Zito Due May 21, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLOTTE ZITO and ALECIA
BOWDON, v. RENAL TREATMENT CENTERS WEST INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00820-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal Whitehead
entered the scheduling deadlines as follows:
Event Date
Deadline for joining additional parties Dec. 5, 2024
Deadline for filing amended pleadings Dec. 5, 2024
Affirmative class certification expert March 5, 2025
disclosures due
Rebuttal class certification expert March 26, 2025
disclosures due
Completion of depositions of class April 23, 2025
certification experts
Deadline to file motion for class May 21, 2025
certification
Deadline to file opposition to motion June 11, 2025
for class certification
Deadline to file reply to motion for June 18, 2025
class certification
Hearing on class certification To be announced
Renal Treatment is a provider of dialysis services in Claremore, OK
and across the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HRCmMQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
RICHLAND COUNTY, SC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Disability Rights South
Carolina and 15 Unnamed Plaintiffs as Class Representatives on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Richland
County, Case No. 8:22-cv-01358-MGL-BM (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:
-- appointing Putative Class Representatives as Class
Representatives;
-- appointing the undersigned attorneys and Burnette Shutt &
McDaniel, PA as Class Counsel; and
-- certifying the following Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2):
"All individuals who (1) have been detained at ASDGC since
April
28, 2022, or will be detained at ASGDC in the future; and (2)
suffer from serious mental illness ("SMI")."
Putative Class Representatives' claims are typical of the class
because they arise from the same courses of conduct, they are based
on the same legal theories, and their interests would be served by
the same equitable relief.
The Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel will adequately represent
the interests of the Class.
Richland County is a county located in the U.S. state of South
Carolina. The county seat and largest community is Columbia, the
state capital.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=th0vXM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stuart M. Andrews, Esq.
Nekki Shutt, Esq.
Ashley Pennington, Esq.
Sarah J.M. Cox, Esq.
Annie Day Bame, Esq.
BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA
Columbia, SC 29202
Telephone: (803) 850-0912
Facsimile: (803) 904-7910
E-mail: sandrews@burnetteshutt.law
nshutt@burnetteshutt.law
apennington@burnetteshutt.law
scox@burnetteshutt.law
abame@burnetteshutt.law
RIVERSIDE RESORT: Archambault Sues Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Archambault, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RIVERSIDE RESORT & CASINO, INC. AND RIVERSIDE
RESORT & CASINO, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01691 (D. Nev., Sept. 11,
2024), is brought seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the
harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the
preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected
computer network.
By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members'
personal information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store
and protect it. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the
trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly
safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling
cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise,
disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view
it.
The Defendant's misconduct--failing to implement adequate and
reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class members'
Personal Information, failing to timely detect the Data Breach,
failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the Data Breach,
failing to disclose the material facts that it did not have
adequate security practices in place to safeguard the Personal
Information, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of
the Data Breach--caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff
and Class members across the United States.
Due to Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals
obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal
identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives
of thousands of individuals, for decades to come. As a result of
the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered
damages. For example, now that their Personal Information has been
released into the criminal cyber domains, Plaintiff and Class
members are at imminent and impending risk of identity theft. This
risk will continue for the rest of their lives, as Plaintiff and
Class members are now forced to deal with the danger of identity
thieves possessing and using their Personal Information, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff received a notice letter from Defendant dated
September 5, 2024.
The Defendant is a resort and casino located in Laughlin,
Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan R. Ring, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Phone: (725) 235-9750
Email: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com
- and -
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Phone: (405) 389-4989
Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
RUSSELECTRIC INC: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert. Opposition
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rita Bowers, Michele
Gear-Cole, Florence Lorenzano, and Reginald Tercy, as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the Russelectric Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, v.
John H. Russell, Suzanne E. Russell, and Lisa J. Russell,
individually and as trustees of the Russelectric Stockholder Trusts
and the Russelectric Stock Proceeds Trusts, as defined herein; and
Denise D. Wyatt, Dennis J. Long, Argent Trust Company, and John and
Jane Does 1-25, Case No. 1:22-cv-10457-PBS (D. Mass.), the parties
ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6, granting an extension of the following deadlines:
Event Current Extended
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Sept. 9, 2024 Oct. 4,
2024
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint
Defendants' Opposition to Sept. 9, 2024 Oct. 24,
2024
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification
Parties' Deadline to Mediate Sept. 30, 2024 Oct. 17,
2024
the Case
This new deadline is intended to provide additional time for
Defendants to prepare their opposition following Ms. Lorenzano's
deposition, as well as to accommodate the parties’ attention to
and preparations for their mediation scheduled to take place
October 17, 2024.
This extension is not sought to delay these proceedings or for any
other improper purpose, and will not impact other case deadlines.
The parties agree and stipulate to this extension of time.
At a status conference held July 15, 2024, the Court granted
Defendants an extension of time to respond to the Second Amended
Complaint to Aug. 9, 2024, and similarly granted Plaintiffs an
extension of the deadline to respond to any motion to dismiss
Defendants filed to Sept. 9, 2024.
At the July 15, 2024 status hearing, the Court granted Defendants
an extension of time to Sept. 9, 2024 to oppose the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DUpQPl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charlie C. Gokey, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
Mark E. Thomson, Esq.
Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE LLC
323 Washington Ave. N., Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-8349
E-mail: cgokey@engstromlee.com
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
bmcdonough@engstromlee.com
mthomson@engstromlee.com
jlee@engstromlee.com
- and -
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON, LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
- and -
Marc Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com
- and -
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL, FENTON, CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Ave, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 337-7992
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Nicholas Nesgos, Esq.
Adam L. Littman, Esq.
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
Prudential Tower
800 Boylston Street, 32nd Floor
Boston, MA 02199
Telephone: (617) 973-6100
Facsimile: (617) 367-2315
E-mail: nicholas.nesgos@afslaw.com
adam.littman@afslaw.com
- and -
Theodore M. Becker, Esq.
Julian L. Andre, Esq.
Asseret Frausto, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
444 West Lake Street
Chicago, IL 60606-0029
Telephone: (312) 372-2000
E-mail: tbecker@mwe.com
jandre@mwe.com
afrausto@mwe.com
- and -
Sean C. Abouchedid, Esq.
Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
Paul J. Rinefierd, Esq.
Lawrence A. Brett, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 861-5429
Facsimile: (202) 659-4503
E-mail: sabouchedid@groom.com
lgolumbic@groom.com
prinefierd@groom.com
lbrett@groom.com
- and -
Grace V.B. Garcia, Esq.
MORRISON MAHONEY LLP
250 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02210-1181
Telephone: (617) 737-8822
Facsimile: (617) 342-4914
E-mail: ggarcia@morrisonmahoney.com
- and -
Debbie W. Harden, Esq.
Sarah Meyer, Esq.
Jed M. Nosal, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
One Wells Fargo Center, Suite 3500
301 South College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-6037
Telephone: (704) 331-4943
E-mail: Debbie.Harden@wbd-us.com
Sarah.Meyer@wbd-us.com
Jed.Nosal@wbd-us.com
SAMPSON BLADEN: Gbete Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEANNE LYLIANE GBETE, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SAMPSON
BLADEN OIL COMPANY, INC. D/B/A HAN-DEE HUGO'S, Case No.
5:23-cv-00355-BO-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
(1) conditional certifying this action as a representative
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA");
(2) approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
consent form in both English and Spanish;
(3) an updated production of names, job titles, dates of
employment
with the Defendant, locations of employment with the
Defendant,
last-known mailing addresses, last-known cell numbers, home
phone numbers, personal email addresses, dates of birth, and
last four digits of their SSNs of all current and former
putative FLSA plaintiffs/R. 23 class members;
(4) ability to email and/or text message the proposed Notice,
along
with utilizing regular U.S. Mail;
(5) certifying this action as a class action under Rule 23(a)
and
(b)(3) for the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claims; and
(6) appointing named Plaintiff Jeanne Lyliane Gbete as class
representative and the Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez,
PLLC
as class counsel.
Sampson-Bladen offers motor oil, lubricants, greases, petrol,
diesel, and chemical products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KnyBCC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Hannah B. Simmons, Esq.
Matthew S. Marlowe, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Dr. Ste. 130
Cary, NC 27513
Telephone: (919) 741-8693
Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com
mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Phillip J. Strach, Esq.
Nathaniel J. Pencook, Esq.
Jordan A. Koonts, Esq.
Matthew A. Abee, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP
301 Hillsborough Street, Suite 1400
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 329-3800
Facsimile: (919) 329-3799
E-mail: phil.strach@nelsonmullins.com
nate.pencook@nelsonmullins.com
jordan.koonts@nelsonmullins.com
matt.abee@nelsonmullins.com
SENTRY SELF-STORAGE: Kuchumova Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sentry Self-Storage
LC. The case is styled as Yelena Kuchumova, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. Sentry Self-Storage LC,
Case No. CACE24013012 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Sept. 11,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Business Transactions."
Sentry Self Storage -- https://www.sentry-selfstorage.com/ -- is
your one-stop-shop for everything you need to develop and run a
successful self storage facility.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
SHEVAUN HARRIS: Court Dismisses Pineda Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pineda v. Harris, et al.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00651 (M.D. Fla., Filed July 16, 2024, the Hon.
Judge John L. Badalamenti entered an endorsed order:
-- denying as moot motion to certify class; and
-- denying as moot Motion to appoint counsel.
The Court dismissed this case on Aug. 28, 2024.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Class Cert Responses Due Sept. 24
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cooper, et al., v. Simpson
Strong-Tie Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07901 (N.D. Cal.,
Filed Dec. 2, 2019), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an
order
granting joint stipulation extending briefing schedule for motion
for class certification and motion for judgment on the pleadings.
-- For the motion for class certification
responses are due: Sept. 24, 2024
replies are still due: Oct. 1, 2024
-- For Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
responses are due: Sept. 24, 2024
replies are due: Oct. 1, 2024
The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability.
Simpson is a supplier of structural building products.[CC]
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Sept. 24 Opposition to Class Cert Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAVI SALHOTRA, SANDHYA
SALHOTRA, MELISSA CARD, FEI ALLEN, and SABRINA TUMELSON, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SIMPSON
STRONG-TIE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a California corporation; SIMPSON
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07901-TLT (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending
briefing schedule for motion for class certification and motion for
judgment on the pleadings as follows:
Event Current Date Proposed New
Date
Opposition to Class Sept. 17, 2024 Sept. 24, 2024
Certification Motion
Reply in support of Sept. 24, 2024 Oct. 1, 2024
Class Certification
Motion
Opposition to Motion Sept. 17, 2024 Sept. 24, 2024
for Judgment on the
Pleadings
Reply in support of Sept. 24, 2024 Oct. 1, 2024
Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings
The Proposed New Dates comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) which
requires that reply briefs be submitted at least 14 days prior to
the hearing. Thus, the proposed modifications to the briefing
schedules should not require any extension of the hearing dates.
the Parties have met and conferred and agreed that extending by one
week the due date for the opposition and reply briefs for the class
certification motion and the motion for judgment on the pleadings
would afford the respective Parties additional needed time to
address the multiple and complex issues in these two motions. In
addition, it would simplify the schedule since the opposition
briefs would be due on the same date, as would the reply briefs.
The Plaintiffs first moved for class certification on Aug. 20,
2021, which after being fully briefed was heard by Magistrate Judge
Thomas Hixson on Dec. 16, 2021, and later denied.
On Oct. 10, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file the Third Amended Complaint ("3AC").
Simpson designs and sells structural connectors intended to anchor
a home to its concrete foundation.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jQsQIU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 846-3862
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
- and -
Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
MaryBeth LippSmith, Esq.
Celene Chan Andrews, Esq.
LIPPSMITH LLP
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 344-1820
Facsimile: (213) 513-2495
E-mail: g@lippsmith.com
mb@lippsmith.com
cca@lippsmith.com
- and -
Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq.
Scott J. Thomson, Esq.
KASDAN TURNER
THOMSON BOOTH, LLP
1280 Civic Drive., Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 906-9220
Facsimile: (925) 906-9221
E-mail: kskasdan@kasdancdlaw.com
sthomson@kasdancdlaw.com
- and -
Stephen G. Larson, Esq.
Paul A. Rigali, Esq.
LARSON LLP
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 436-4888
Facsimile: (213) 623-200
E-mail: slarson@larsonllp.com
prigali@larsonllp.com
SKY CLIMBER: Proposed Class Certification Schedule Set for Sept. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Olmedo v. Sky Climber Wind
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05303 (W.D. Wash., Filed April 19,
2024), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order setting
parties' proposed class certification schedule for Sept. 20. 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
concerning minimum wage or overtime compensation.
Sky Climber is a service provider specializing in wind, solar and
battery energy storage projects.[CC]
SKYLER ZHANG: Conditional Collective Cert Bid Due Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fields v. Skyler Zhang,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03002 (D. Colo., Filed Nov. 18,
2022), the Hon. Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order setting
deadlines in their joint status report as a motion to amend the
scheduling order.
-- Conditional collective certification motion or stipulation due
September 30, 2024. Class discovery due by Dec. 31, 2024.
-- Rule 23 motion for class certification due by Feb. 28, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
SLEEPYHEAD INC: Ortiz Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SLEEPYHEAD INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00852 (W.D.N.Y., September 11, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York State 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://sleepyheadusa.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.
Sleepyhead 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
SNOWFLAKE INC: Madden Files Suit in D. Montana
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowflake, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Lavonne Madden, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snowflake, Inc.,
Ticketmaster, L.L.C., Case No. 2:24-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont., Sept.
5, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Snowflake Inc. -- https://www.snowflake.com/en/ -- is an American
_cloud computing–based data cloud company based in Bozeman,
Montana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Phone: (406) 839-9091
Fax: (406) 839-9092
Email: john@lawmontana.com
- and -
Joseph Patrick Cook, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Phone: (406) 839-9091
Email: joe@lawmontana.com
SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Klasse Class Cert Bid Modified to Feb. 14, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA KLASSEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SOLIDQUOTE LLC, and DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC f/k/a UNDERGROUND
ELEPHANT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the Digital Media
Solutions, LLC's first unopposed motion to modify scheduling order.
The Scheduling Order is further amended as follows:
Fact discovery cut-off: Oct. 25, 2024
Disclosure of affirmative experts: Nov. 19, 2024
Disclosure of rebuttal experts: Dec. 20, 2024
Expert discovery cut-off: Jan. 24, 2025
Motion for class certification: Feb. 14, 2025
Dispositive motions: 45 days after ruling on Plaintiff's motion
for
class certification or, if no such motion is
filed, by March 7, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GcFxx5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SOMNIA INC: Class Settlement in Chabak Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRENE CHABAK, ARMANDO
CARRASCO, RANDY POLK, KELLY WILSON, THOMAS BOOTH HARRIS, SCOTT
WEISCOPE, LAVINA HENDERSON, JEREMY HENDERSON, and RAYCINE SOMMERS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SOMNIA INC., ANESTHESIA SERVICES OF SAN JOAQUIN P.C., PALM SPRINGS
ANESTHESIA SERVICES P.C., RESOURCE ANESTHESIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF IL
P.C., RESOURCE ANESTHESIOLOGY ASSOCIATION OF NM INC., and
ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES OF EL PASO, P.A., Case No. 7:22-cv-9341-PMH
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip Halpern entered an order as
follows:
-- The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement and the terms
embodied therein pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). The
Court
finds that it will likely be able to approve the Settlement
under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) and to finally certify the Class and
the
California Subclass for purposes of judgment pursuant to the
Settlement.
-- The Court further finds that Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have
adequately represented, and will continue to adequately
represent,
the Class and the California Subclass.
-- The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement relief
provided
-- a $2,425,000 non-reversionary settlement fund -- is fair,
reasonable, and adequate taking into account, inter alia, the
costs, risks, and delay of further litigation, trial and
appeal,
the alleged harm to the Class and the California Subclass, the
proposed method of distributing payments to the Class and the
California Subclass, and the absence of any agreement required
to
be identified under Rule 23(e)(3).
-- The Court finds that it is likely to certify under Fed. R. Civ.
P.
23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(e), for settlement purposes only, a
"Class," consisting of:
"All natural persons residing in the United States whose
Personal
Information was compromised in the Security Incident."
And a "California Subclass" consisting of:
"All natural persons residing in California whose Personal
Information was compromised in the Security Incident."
Excluded from the Class and California Subclass are: (1) the
Judge
presiding over the Action, and members of his family; (2)
Defendants, their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants or their
parents
have a controlling interest and their current or former
officers
and directors; (3) Persons who properly execute and submit a
request for exclusion prior to the expiration of the Opt-Out
Period; and (4) the successors or assigns of any such excluded
Persons.
-- The Court designates Plaintiffs Irene Chabak, Armando Carrasco,
Randy Polk, Kelly Wilson, Thomas Booth Harris, Scott Weiscope,
Lavina Henderson, Jeremy Henderson, and Raycine Sommers as
Class
Representatives for the Class. The Court hereby designates
Raycine
Sommers, Kelly Wilson, Randy Polk, and Thomas Booth Harris as
Subclass Representatives for the California Subclass.
-- The Court designates Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
and
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP as Class
Counsel for the Class and California Subclass.
Somnia is a full service clinical anesthesia solutions partner
founded in 1996.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7B2xCn at no extra
charge.[CC]
SOUTHCOAST HEALTH: Lockette Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Markus Lockette, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Southcoast Health Administration
Management, LLC, Privia Medical Group of Georgia, LLC, Case No.
SPCV24-00895 was removed from the Superior Court of Chatham County,
Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia on Sept. 6, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00205-LGW-BWC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated Other P.I.
Southcoast Health's world-class Brain & Spine --
https://www.southcoast.org/ -- offers neurology, pain management,
and neurosurgery expertise combined with the latest
technology.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Hillary L. Freesmeier, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1170 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2400
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 459-5522
Email: hfreesmeier@bakerlaw.com
SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL: Graham Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Peggy Graham, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SOUTHCOAST MEDICAL GROUP, LLC, Case
No. SPCV24-00886-WA was removed from the Superior Court of Chatham
County, Georgia, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia on Sept. 9, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 4:24-cv-00204-RSB-CLR.
The Complaint here asserts factual allegations and claims against
Defendant arising out of a data security incident experienced by
Defendant in June 2023. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
Defendant is a healthcare system; collected and stored personally
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") from Plaintiff and the putative class; and suffered a
cyberattack between June 15, 2023 and June 18, 2023, during which
cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and putative class
members' PII and PHI (the "Data Incident").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher A. Wiech
Hillary L. Freesmeier
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1170 Peachtree Street, Suite 2400
Atlanta, GA 30309-7676
Phone: 404.946.9814
Email: cwiech@bakerlaw.com
hfreesmeier@bakerlaw.com
SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 25, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN ALEXANDER, v.
SOUTHERN FINANCIAL LIFE INS. CO., Case No. 3:24-cv-00393-DJH-CHL
(W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Colin Lindsay entered a scheduling order
as follows:
(1) Initial disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1) shall be
completed no later than Sept. 9, 2024.
(2) Any motion to amend pleadings or motion to join additional
Parties shall be filed no later than Dec. 13, 2024.
(3) (a) Identification of class certification experts in
accordance
with FRCP 26(a)(2) shall be due
Plaintiffs: no later than June 23, 2025
Defendant: no later than July 25, 2025
(4) The Parties shall complete all class certification fact
discovery no later than May 23, 2025, and all class
certification expert discovery no later than Aug. 15, 2025.
(5) All class certification motions shall be filed by Aug. 25,
2025.
(6) All non-class discovery shall be completed within 120 days
of
the Court's ruling on class certification.
Southern is provider of life insurance, retirement planning,
medicare, & mortgage protection.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1K3fL9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SOUTHWEST ANSWERING: Vleet Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Answering
Service, Inc. The case is styled as Janine Van Vleet, individually,
on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwest Answering Service, Inc., Case No. 24CHCV03307
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 12, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Southwest Answering Service --
https://southwestansweringservice.com/ -- is a answering and
virtual receptionist service provider serving the southwest United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mankin Brian, Esq.
LAUBY MANKIN LAUBY LLP
5198 Arlington Ave., Pmb. 513
Riverside, CA 92504-2603
Phone: 951-320-1444
Fax: 951-320-1445
Email: brian@lmlfirm.com
SPRING VALLEY: Faces Stubbins Suit Over Time Rounding Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR STUBBINS, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SPRING VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL
CENTER; VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.; UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES,
INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No.
2:24-cv-01672-EJY (D. Nev., September 10, 2024) arises out of
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Nevada Revised Statute.
Plaintiff Stubbins was employed by Defendants as a registered nurse
in the Intermediate Care Unit. She was an hourly paid, non-exempt,
non-union employee who earned $43.00 per hour at the time of
termination. She routinely worked prior to the beginning of her
regularly scheduled shift and after the end of her regularly
scheduled shift, but due to Defendants' Quarter Hour Rounding
Policy, the time spent working for Defendants was rounded off her
time for pay purposes. In addition, when she worked more than 40
hours in a workweek, the Defendants' Quarter Hour Rounding Policy
operated to deprive Plaintiff of overtime premium pay for the
workweek, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Las Vegas, NV, Spring Valley Hospital Medical
Center is a for-profit hospital owned by Universal Health Services
and operated by Valley Health Systems. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK
325 W. Liberty Street
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com
leah@thiermanbuck.com
STARKIST CO: Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Nov. 22
----------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Settlements have been reached in an antitrust class action
called In Re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, No.
15-MD-2670 DMS (MSB) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. Those who sued are called the End
Payer Plaintiffs or EPPs. The companies they sued are the
Defendants and include Tri-Union Seafoods LLC d/b/a Chicken of the
Sea International and Thai Union Group PCL (collectively "COSI"),
StarKist Company and its parent company, Dongwon industries Co. Ltd
(collectively "StarKist") and Bumble Bee Foods, LLC ("Bumble Bee")
and its parent companies Lion Capital LLP, Lion Capital (Americas),
Inc., and Big Catch Cayman LP (the "Lion Companies" or "Lion").
On July 15, 2022, the Court approved a settlement reached in this
antitrust class action between the EPPs and COSI (the "COSI
Settlement"). On August 9, 2024, a proposed settlement was reached
in this antitrust action between the EPPs and StarKist (the
"StarKist Settlement"). And, on August 7, 2024, a proposed
settlement was reached in this antitrust action between the EPPs
and Lion (the "Lion Settlement").
If approved by the Court, the StarKist and Lion Settlements will
resolve the EPPs' claims that from June 1, 2011 to July 31, 2015
StarKist and Lion participated in an unlawful conspiracy to raise,
fix, maintain, or stabilize the price of Packaged Tuna products at
an artificially high level in violation of antitrust and unfair
competition laws.
Both StarKist and Lion deny many of the allegations and have
asserted defenses to the EPPs' claims. The EPPs, StarKist, and Lion
agreed to the proposed Settlements to avoid further litigation, the
risks of an adverse jury verdict, substantial trial costs, and
inconvenience to the EPPs, StarKist, and Lion. If approved, the
StarKist and Lion Settlements will release StarKist and Lion from
the claims in this case, thereby resolving all remaining EPP claims
in this action.
Am I part of the Settlement Class? The StarKist and Lion Settlement
Class includes all persons and entities who resided in Arizona,
Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Guam,
Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin, who indirectly purchased Packaged Tuna in
cans or pouches smaller than forty ounces for end consumption and
not for resale, produced by any Defendant or any current or former
subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator during the
period from June 1, 2011 to July 1, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The
StarKist and Lion Settlement Class excludes purchases of meal kits.
Also excluded from the StarKist and Lion Settlement Class is the
Court, the Defendants, and individuals who previously opted out of
the COSI Settlement Class or certified Class.
What do the StarKist and Lion Settlements provide? If approved,
StarKist has agreed to pay $130 million and Lion $6 million, for a
total $136 million in benefits. With the $16.2 million in benefits
provided by the COSI Settlementt, the total settlement benefits in
this antitrust case are $152.2 million ("Total Settlement").
All fees and expenses in this matter will be paid from the Total
Settlement Fund. Class Counsel will ask the Court to approve: (1)
attorneys' fees equal to 33% of the Total Settlement Fund; (2)
$1,618,489.24 in out-of-pocket litigation costs incurred since May
2021; and (3) $294,000 in service awards to be distributed to the
individual EPPs based on their contribution to the case. The Court
has already approved an expense award in the amount of
$4,155,027.67 to reimburse Class Counsel for out-of-pocket
litigation costs incurred as of May 2021.
Based on the Total Settlement amount of $152.2 million, it is
estimated that Settlement Class Members will receive approximately
$24.50 for every 200 cans purchased (approximate number of cans if
you purchased packaged tuna weekly during the Settlement Class
Period) or approximately $0.12 per can. The actual per-can payment
amount will depend on the amount of attorneys' fees and costs,
service awards for the individual EPPs, and administration costs
that are awarded by the Court, as well as the number of valid
claims received and the volume of cans/pouches represented in those
claims.
How can I get a payment? Go to www.TunaEndPurchaserSettlement.com
to file or download the Claim Form. Your claim must be submitted
online or postmarked by December 31, 2024. If you already filed a
claim in the COSI Settlement, you do not need to file another claim
for payment. By filing a claim, you will be bound by the Total
Settlement and you will give up your right to sue or continue to
sue StarKist and Lion for the claims in this case.
What are my other options?
Do nothing. Unless you previously filed a valid claim in the COSI
Settlement, you will not receive money. You will give up your right
to sue or continue to sue StarKist and Lion for the claims in this
case.
Object. You may tell the Court what you do not like about the
StarKist and Lion Settlements. You will still be bound by the
StarKist and Lion Settlements and you may still file a claim. For
details on how to object, go to www.TunaEndPurchaserSettlement.com.
Objections must be postmarked by November 8, 2024.
There is no additional opportunity to exclude yourself ("Opt Out")
from the StarKist and Lion Settlements. Settlement Class Members
were provided two opportunities to exclude or "opt out" in both the
COSI Settlement Class Notice and then in the Litigation ("Class")
Notice. If you provided a valid and timely opt out or exclusion as
part of the COSI Settlement Class and Class Notice, then you will
be excluded from the Settlement Class.
The Court's Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold a Fairness
Hearing at 1:30 p.m. on November 22, 2024 at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, James M.
Carter and Judith N. Keep United States Courthouse, 333 West
Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101. At the Fairness Hearing, the Court
will consider whether the proposed StarKist and Lion Settlements
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court
will consider the amount of any attorneys' fees award,
reimbursement amounts for litigation costs, and the amount of any
service awards for the EPPs. If there are objections, the Court
will consider them. After the hearing, the Court will decide
whether to approve the StarKist and Lion Settlements. Payments will
be made to Settlement Class Members who submit a valid and timely
Claim Form after the Court grants "final approval" of the StarKist
and Lion Settlements, all funds have been paid as required by the
Settlement Agreements, final judgments are entered, and all appeals
are exhausted. We do not know how long these decisions will take.
Please be patient.
The Court appointed the law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP as Class Counsel on behalf of the EPPs and Class
Members. However, you or your own lawyer are welcome to come to the
hearing at your own expense.
Questions? Visit www.TunaEndPurchaserSettlement.com, write Tuna End
Purchaser Settlement, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91442,
Seattle, WA 98111, email info@TunaEndPurchaserSettlement.com, or
call toll-free 1-866-615-0977.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT.[GN]
STERLING JEWELERS: Walkup Sues Over ADA & Human Rights Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICK WALKUP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06810 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2024) arises from Defendant's
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 persons.
Plaintiff Walkup asserts that Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website constitutes violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
Headquartered in Akron, OH, Sterling Jewelers owns and maintains
the website known as Kay.com which provides consumers with access
to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view
rings, necklaces, earrings, bracelets and watches. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
STREAMLABS LLC: Class Settlement in Leventhal Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZARA LEVENTHAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STREAMLABS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01330-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Laurel Beeler entered an amending order granting preliminary
approval of class action settlement.
On Aug. 29, 2024, the Court held a hearing on Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement, and thereafter entered an Order Certifying
Settlement Class, Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement And Approving Form And Manner Of Notice Of Settlement.
The Preliminary Approval Order included a deadline of Dec. 19,
2024, as the last day for Settlement Class Counsel to file a motion
for final approval and for an award of the Settlement Class Counsel
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses and/or incentive award and the
Parties have agreed to amend this deadline to Dec. 4, 2024, to
provide class members with additional time to opt out or to
object.
The Parties will add Wolf Popper LLP - form notice as an additional
source for class members to contact if they have questions before
it is added to the settlement website.
Streamlabs is a streaming platform for Twitch, YouTube & Facebook.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RPYNJi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristin J. Moody, Esq.
Alexander S. Vahdat, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
E-mail: kmoody@bermantabacco.com
avahdat@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
Philip M. Black, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com
pblack@wolfpopper.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph E. Addiego III, Esq.
Jean Fundakowski, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
50 California Street, 23rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 276-6500
Facsimile: (415) 276-6599
E-mail: joeaddiego@dwt.com
jeanfundakowski@dwt.com
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Parties Seek Permanent Sealing of Certain Docs
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joseph Amato, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Subaru of America, Inc. and Subaru Corporation, Case No.
1:18-cv-16118-JHR-AMD (D.N.J.), the Parties will move the Court
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3 on Oct. 7, 2024, for an order
permanently sealing the following documents and/or information:
Exhibit 16 filed under seal in support of Subaru's Motion for
Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs, filed on April 1, 2024 as
ECF
No. 169;
Certain redactions from Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on July 1, 2024
as
ECF No. 183;
Exhibit 4 filed under seal in support of Plaintiffs' Opposition;
and
Exhibit 8 filed under seal in support of Plaintiffs' Opposition.
Subaru is the United States-based distributor of Subaru's brand
vehicles.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FPuHTJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Neal Walters, Esq.
Casey Watkins, Esq.
J. Matt Thornton, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
700 East Gate Drive, Suite 330
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-0015
Telephone: (856) 761-2400
Facsimile: (856) 761-1020
E-mail: waltersn@ballardspahr.com
watkinsc@ballardspahr.com
thorntonj@ballardspahr.com
SUPER MICRO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 29
------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until October 29, 2024 to file lead
plaintiff applications in securities class action lawsuits against
Super Micro Computer, Inc. ("SMCI" or the "Company") (NasdaqGS:
SMCI), if they purchased the Company's securities between February
2, 2021 and August 28, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). These
actions are pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
Get Help
SMCI investors should visit us at
https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-smci-3/ or call toll-free
(844) 367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to
discuss your legal options.
About the Lawsuits
SMCI and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On August 27, 2024, Hindenburg Research released a report entitled
"Super Micro: Fresh Evidence of Accounting Manipulation, Sibling
Self-Dealing and Sanctions Evasion at this AI High Flyer" that
detailed its "3-month investigation" which uncovered "glaring
accounting red flags, evidence of undisclosed related party
transactions, sanctions and expert control failures, and customer
issues," and that the Company continued to engage in
channel-stuffing despite being charged by the SEC for doing so. On
this news, the price of SMCI's shares fell from a closing price of
$562.51 per share on August 26, 2024 to $443.49 per share on August
28, 2024.
The first-filed case is Averza v. Super Micro Computer, Inc.,
24-cv-06147. Two subsequent cases were filed, Menditto v. Super
Micro Computer, Inc., 24-cv-06149 and Spatz v. Super Micro
Computer, Inc., 24-cv-06193.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
SUSHI KATSUEI: Must Request Extension to File Opposition Materials
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chakma, et al., v. Sushi
Katsuei, Inc, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-07804-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order that it received
the declarations of Diane Y. Seo, Aung Ko Win, and Aye Aye Swe on
September 3, 2024, one day after the requested deadline of
September 2, 2024, and has yet to receive an opposition brief:
-- If defense counsel intends to file all of Defendants'
opposition
materials (including her memorandum of law) today, the Court
authorizes her to do so.
-- If Defendants were planning to file their opposition materials
on
some other day, they are instructed to request an extension of
the
filing deadline via a separate letter motion on ECF, which
request
the Court will consider in due course. The Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 47.
Sushi Katsuei offers fresh sushi and seafood in the heart of
Brooklyn.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wMid8t at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Diana Y. Seo, Esq.
SEO LAW GROUP, PLLC
136-68 Roosevelt Ave, Suite 726
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 500-3341
E-mail: diana!@seolawgroup.com
SWIFT PORK: Vail Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS VAIL, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SWIFT PORK
COMPANY, d/b/a JBS USA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00354-DJH-RSE (W.D. Ky.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order designating and
certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(c):
"All owner/occupants and renters of residential property
residing
within one (1) mile of the Facility's property boundary at any
time from July 11, 2020, to the present."
The Plaintiff and the proposed Class have been unreasonably and
substantially adversely impacted and deprived of the use,
enjoyment, and full value of their homes and property due to
Defendant’s persistent noxious odor emissions.
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. (a) and (b)(3), the Plaintiff submits that the
following elements for class certification are satisfied and
respectfully requests that the Court certify the proposed Class
accordingly.
The Plaintiff's proposed Class therefore satisfies the requirements
for class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3).
The Plaintiff advances a claim for temporary private nuisance on
behalf of himself a proposed Class of his neighbors in the
Butchertown neighborhood of Louisville who have for years been
plagued by noxious odor emissions from the Swift Pork Facility.
The Defendant regularly fails to mitigate or control the noxious
odor emissions resulting from its operations, allowing those
emissions to migrate into the surrounding residential community.
Swift Pork operates a pork processing plant located at 1200 Story
Avenue in Louisville.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KAu7wr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
D. Reed Solt, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
E-mail: sliddle@lsccounsel.com
lsheets@lsccounsel.com
rsolt@lsccounsel.com
- and -
Matthew White, Esq.
GRAY & WHITE
2301 River Road, No. 300
Louisville, KY 40206
Telephone: (502) 805-1800
E-mail: www.grayandwhitelaw.com
mwhite@grayandwhitelaw.com
TAPESTRY INC: Sept. 30 Reset for Class Cert Bid Filing Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nguyen-Wilhite v.
Tapestry, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03339-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order that:
-- the deadline for Plaintiff's reply in support of her motion for
class certification be re-set to Sept. 20, 2024, and
-- the briefing on the parties' anticipated cross-motions for
summary
judgment be set as follows:
i. motions due 60 days after the Court's order on class
certification;
ii. oppositions due 45 days after motions are filed; and
iii. replies due 21 days after opposition briefs.
This brief extension is warranted in light of litigation
obligations on the part of the Plaintiff's counsel, including
multiple major court appearances in other matters requiring
cross-country travel.
Tapestry is an American multinational fashion holding company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uBJ55i at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
E-mail: lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Deal in De Schutter Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER DE SCHUTTER,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
TARENA INTERNATIONAL, INC., SHAOYUN HAN, and YUDUO YANG, Case No.
1:21-cv-03502-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Chen
entered an order finally approving the settlement agreement and
certifying the Settlement Class.
In addition, the Court approves and awards:
(1) attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,166,666.67,
(2) reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of
$25,922.61 (plus accrued interest), and
(3) incentive awards to Plaintiffs totaling $15,000, comprising
of
$10,000 to Lead Plaintiff and $2,500 to each Named
Plaintiff.
The Court finds that the Stipulation meets all of the Rule 23
requirements.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the procedural fairness
requirement under Rules 23(e)(2)(A)–(B) has been satisfied.
The Plaintiffs brought this class action on behalf of all persons
who bought, sold, or otherwise traded in Tarena's American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between Aug. 16, 2016, and Nov. 1, 2019.
The Amended Complaint alleges that Tarena provides professional
education services, including professional information technology
("IT") vocational training courses and after-school IT programs.
On Sept. 5, 2023, the Court preliminarily certified the class for
the purposes of settlement under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Tarena is a Cayman Islands corporation headquartered in China.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nk1mEJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
TEAM IMPORTS LLC: Rizza Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Team Imports, LLC.
The case is styled as Pino Rizza, Lucy Rizza, individually and on
behalf of a class and subclass of others similarly situated v. Team
Imports, LLC, Case No. HHD-CV24-6190924-S (Conn. Super. Ct.,
Hartford Cty., Sept. 6, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Misc - All other."
Team Imports, LLC -- https://www.teamvwaudi.com/ -- is a private
company. The company currently specializes in the Automotive
area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CONSUMER LAW GROUP LLC (414047)
35 Cold Spring Road, Suite 512
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
TEXAS TECH: Class Discovery in Stewart Due Jan. 7, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE STEWART, v. TEXAS
TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, et al., Case No.
5:23-cv-00007-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix
entered an amended scheduling order as follows:
Initial Expert Designation & Report Aug. 20,2024
Responsive Expert Designation & Report Oct. 4. 2024
Completion of Discovery Jan. 7, 2025
Expert Objections Jan. 17 ,2025
Dispositive Motions Feb. 7,2025
Pretrial Disclosures and Objections May 16,202
Exchange of Exhibits May 23,2025
Trial Date June 9, 2025
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center is a public medical
school based in Lubbock, Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dQw5tE at no extra
charge.[CC]
TIMBER CREEK PLAZA: Cheli Sues Over Discriminative Property
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Cheli, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf
of all other similarly situated mobility impaired persons v. TIMBER
CREEK PLAZA LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No.
1:24-cv-09089 (D.N.J., Sept. 11, 2024), is brought pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination ("LAD") as a result of the Defendant
property being discriminative to mobility impaired persons.
The Defendant's property is a shopping center/plaza with several
tenant spaces--known as Timber Creek Plaza--located at 1135
Hurffville Rd, Deptford, NJ 08906 Gloucester County (the "Property"
or "Timber Creek").
The Plaintiff encounters architectural barriers at many of the
places that she visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features
such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for
granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or
implemented, can be arduous and even dangerous to those in
wheelchairs.
The Plaintiff has visited the Property--and the tenant spaces--on
several occasions over the years, her last visit occurred on or
about August 3, 2024. She visited Pinto Thong Thai Cuisine, Ramen
Spot, and Elegants Nails and Spa during said visit. Ms. Cheli
visited the Property as a bone fide patron with the intent to avail
herself of the goods and services offered to the public within but
found that the Property was littered with violations of the ADA,
both in architecture and policy.
The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property remains
non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable
grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to
discrimination by the Defendants, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a staunch advocate of the ADA since becoming
mobility impaired.
TIMBER CREEK PLAZA LLC, owns and/or operates a place of public
accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
SHADINGER LAW, LLC
717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
Vineland, NJ 08360
Phone: (609) 319-5399
Email: js@shadingerlaw.com
TOM VILSACK: Initial Disclosures in Bennett Suit Due Sept. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRINA BENNETT, et al., v.
TOM VILSACK, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00430-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered a preliminary
pretrial order:
-- The Plaintiff will make her initial disclosures by Sept. 20,
2024.
-- The Defendants' position is that the remaining count of the
Complaint arises under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"),
and that review is limited to the administrative record.
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties
shall be filed by Oct. 18, 2024.
-- If the case is a class action, the parties agree that the motion
for class certification shall be filed by Aug. 22, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff alleges that the Federal Defendants adopted
policies
and regulations that do not authorize states to use federal
funds
to reimburse Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
("SNAP")
benefits stolen by means of card skimming. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Federal Defendants' actions violated 7 U.S.C. section
2016(h)(7) and were thus contrary to law, as well as arbitrary
and
capricious, under 5 U.S.C. section 706(2).
-- All discovery shall be completed by June 20, 2025.
-- Any dispositive motion shall be filed by Nov. 21, 2025.
-- The parties do not anticipate the need for expert reports.
-- The Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand by July 7, 2025.
-- Defendants shall respond by July 31, 2025.
-- The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle this
case.
-- The parties understand that this case will be referred to an
attorney mediator, or to the Magistrate Judge, for a settlement
conference in August 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XYk4aU at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Class Cert Responses Due Sept. 30 in Lovejoy
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lovejoy v. Transdev
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00380 (S.D. Cal., Filed
Feb. 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an
order setting briefing schedule:
-- Responses due by: Sept. 30, 2024
-- Replies due by: Oct. 7, 2024
-- Motion Hearing set for: Dec. 5, 2024
The nature of suit states labor litigation.
Transdev is doing business in public transport.[CC]
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERISHA LOVEJOY, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC, and DOES 1 to 10, Case No.
3:23-cv-00380-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court for an Order certifying the below class for the following
claims asserted in the Class Action Complaint for Damages and
Injunctive Relief:
"All current and former Bus Driver/Operator employees of
Transdev
Services, Inc. who drove routes with stops in California during
the
period from Feb. 27, 2019, through the present ("Class
Period")."
Excluded from the Class are any of Transdev's officers,
directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any
entity in which Transdev has a controlling interest. In
addition,
Plaintiff seeks to be appointed as class representative for the
Class.
The Plaintiff moves for class certification under Rules 23(a) and
(b)(3) of the following class against the Defendant for
-- failure to pay all regular, minimum, and overtime wages in
violation of California Labor Code sections 200, 210, 510,
515,
558, 1194, 1194.2 (Count 1 of CAC);
-- failure to pay split shift wages in violation of California
Labor Code section 558 and IWC Wage Order 9 section 4(c)
(Count
2);
-- failure to provide meal periods in violation of California
Labor
Code sections 226.7 and 512 (Count 3);
-- failure to provide rest periods in violation of California
Labor
Code section 226.7 (Count 4);
-- failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in
violation of California Labor Code section 226 (Count 5); and
-- failure to timely pay wages due in violation of California
Labor
Code sections 201 and 202 (Count 6).
The Plaintiff also moves for an order appointing Hewgill Cobb &
Lockard, APC and Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes, LLP, as
class counsel, pursuant to Rule 23(g).
Transdev Services provides passenger transportation services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0dduba at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
Joshua A. Fields, Esq.
Aya Dardari, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW
HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-4990
E-mail: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com
jfields@sshhzlaw.com
adardari@sshhzlaw.com
- and -
Justin Hewgill, Esq.
HEWGILL COBB & LOCKARD, APC
1620 Fifth Avenue, Suite 325
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 432-2520
Facsimile: (619) 377-6026
E-mail: contact@hcl-lawfirm.com
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Class Settlement in Rand Suit Wins Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER RAND,
individually and on behalf of a class similarly situated, v. THE
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 7:21-cv-10744-VB-VR
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent Briccetti entered an order
preliminarily approving class action settlement and scheduling
hearing for final approval.
The Court provisionally certifies settlement class:
"All individuals of the United States who were sent notice that
their Personal Information was accessed, stolen, or compromised
as a
result of the Data Incident, as reflected on the Class List."
Travelers offers home, auto, commercial, life, health, recreational
vehicle, business, travel, and other personal insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tIxpIn at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRC STAFFING: Court Suspends Class Certification Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Burke v. TRC Staffing
Services, Inc. (TRC STAFFING SERVICES, INC. DATA BREACH
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-02398-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
Victoria Calvert entered an order granting plaintiff's unopposed
motion to suspend or stay deadline for filing motion for class
certification.
The Court has considered the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to
suspend or stay deadline for filing motion for class certification
and memorandum of law.
TRC Staffing provides workforce management.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Q0Yif at no extra
charge.[CC]
TURMAN COMMERCIAL: Tirado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turman Commercial
Painters, et al. The case is styled as Tirjos Jose Alfredo Tirado,
an individual, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Turman Commercial Painters, E. Turman and Company,
Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0011538 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Sept. 11, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Turman Commercial Painters -- https://www.turmaninc.com/ -- is a
General Contractor that serves the Manteca, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346
Phone: 310-824-3828
Fax: 310-862-6851
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
U.S. PROTECTION: Ropp Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Security Guards
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN ROPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. PROTECTION SERVICE LLC, doing business
as Royce U.S. Protection, Royce Security Services, Royce-U.S.
Protection Service, Now Security Group, Safety Reaction Team, SRT,
Tenable Security, Tenable Protective Services, Tenable Event
Services, and Willo Security, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01546-DAP
(N.D. Ohio, September 11, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a security guard through
March 2024.
U.S. Protection Service LLC, doing business as Royce U.S.
Protection, Royce Security Services, Royce-U.S. Protection Service,
Now Security Group, Safety Reaction Team, SRT, Tenable Security,
Tenable Protective Services, Tenable Event Services, and Willo
Security, is a private security company doing business in Ohio.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
UIPATH INC: Court Consolidates Brunozzi Action with Steiner Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Simone Brunozzi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UiPath, Inc., Daniel Dines, Robert Enslin and Ashim Gupta, Case No.
1:24-cv-05959 (JPC) (SDA) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stewart Aaron
entered an order granting Brunozzi's motion in its entirety.
1. The Steiner Action and Brunozzi Action are consolidated under
Master File No. 1:24-CV-04702 (JPC) (SDA). The consolidation
is
for all purposes including discovery and trial. All documents
in
the consolidated actions shall be filed only in the Master
File.
The Clerk of Court is directed to rename the caption in the
Master File as "In re UiPath Securities Litigation." In
addition, the Clerk of Court is directed to administratively
close Case No. 24-CV-05959.
2. Brunozzi is appointed as lead plaintiff and Brunozzi's
selection
of BFA as lead counsel is approved.
3. No later than Sept. 20, 2024, the parties shall
meet-and-confer
and file a joint letter providing a proposed schedule for
the
Plaintiff to file a Consolidated Complaint and for the
Defendants to file an Answer to the Consolidated Complaint or
otherwise respond to the Consolidated Complaint.
Based on a review of the Complaints in the Steiner Action and the
Brunozzi Action, the Court finds that these two actions involve
common questions of law and fact warranting consolidation.
Accordingly, the Court hereby grants the motion to consolidate the
Steiner Action and the Brunozzi Action.
Because Brunozzi has satisfied the PSLRA requirements, the Court
finds that he is the most adequate plaintiff. The Court therefore
appoints Brunozzi as lead plaintiff.
On June 20, 2024, the Steiner Action was initiated by filing the
Complaint.
On Aug. 6, 2024, the Brunozzi Action was initiated by filing its
respective Complaint, which contains allegations that are
substantially similar to the allegations in the Steiner Action.
On Aug. 19, 2024, BFA filed the motion now before the Court with
its supporting papers.
UiPath Inc. is a global software company that makes robotic process
automation software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RzoUur at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIQLO USA: Tao Suit Removed to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brian Tao, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. UNIQLO, USA LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 653736/2024 was removed from
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on Sept. 6, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06781.
The State Court Action is a putative class action against
Defendant, purportedly brought on behalf of "All Individuals in
California, who during the applicable limitations period, created a
Uniqlo account with Defendant either through Uniqlo.com or through
the Uniqlo web application" for alleged violations by Defendant of
California Civil Code Section 1670.8(a).[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gabriella Weick, Esq.
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
50 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 940-8800
Email: gabriella.weick@katten.com
- and -
Kristin Achterhof, Esq.
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
525 W. Monroe Street
Chicago, IL
Phone: (312) 902-5296
Email: kristin.achterhof@katten.com
UNITED NETWORK: White Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------
Lisa White, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. THE UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING, Case No.
3:24-cv-00629-RCY (E.D. Va., Sept. 5, 2024), is brought to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private
Information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to
provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class
Members that their information had been subject to the exposure of
an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of
information was accessed.
This class action arises out of a 2023 data breach ("Data Breach")
of documents and information stored on the computer network of
UNOS, a company that operates the organ transplant and donation
process across the United States.
On its computer network, UNOS holds and stores certain highly
sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and HIPAA
protected health information ("PHI") (together "Private
Information") of the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who
are citizens either registered as an organ donors or those formerly
or presently in need of organ donations as recipients, i.e.,
individuals who provided their highly sensitive and private
information in exchange for organ donation and recipient services.
According to the Notice of Data Breach Letter that UNOS sent to
Plaintiff and Class members, UNOS first became aware of the Data
Breach on November 10, 2023, and began investigating. UNOS finally
began notifying the unknown or undisclosed number of victims on or
about August 21, 2024, nearly 10 months after the data breach
occurred, stating that their PII had been exposed in what Defendant
calls a "data privacy incident."
As a result of UNOS's Data Breach, Plaintiff and over a million
Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of
financial losses resulting from identity theft, out-of-pocket
expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value
of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects
of the attack. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's
failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security
procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff and Class
Members' Private Information.
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks and openly accessible to unauthorized persons. The
mechanism and risks associated with the unauthorized exposure of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk
to Defendant. Thus, Defendant was on notice that failing to take
steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks
left Plaintiff's and Class Members' property in a dangerous
condition, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received a Notice of the Data Breach from UNOS dated
August 21, 2024.
UNOS claims it "was founded to help the community of donation and
transplant professionals make the best possible use of organs to
save lives."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Hilton Wise, Esq.
William N. Evans, Esq.
WISE LAW FIRM PLC
10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Phone: 703-934-6377
Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro
wevans@wiselaw.pro
- and -
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Email: dperry@masonllp.com
ramen@masonllp.com
UNITED STATES: Burton Seeks to Certify Two Florida Inmate Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Burton, a/k/a Jamaal
Ali Bilal, v. United States of America, Donald J. Trump, Republican
Presidential Candidate, Ron Desantis, Governor of State of Florida,
at al., Case No. 8:24-cv-02057-SDM-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order grating motion to certify class
of:
Class One
"All inmates or former inmates of Florida who are not allowed to
vote in Florida to felony conviction."
Class Two
"All inmates or former inmates of Florida who are not allowed to
vote in Florida to murder and sexual felony conviction."
As of March 2023, the Prison Policy Initiative estimated that there
were about 1.9 million people incarcerated in the United States.
Approximate half of these inmates reside in state it is given that
inmate cannto vote."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0tYspq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Mathis Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MATHIS and KENNEDY
DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-01312-TNM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Trevor McFadden entered
an order that:
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of
class counsel is denied without prejudice for failure to comply
with Local Rule 7(m);
-- Defendants' [20] Motion to Stay Class Certification Proceedings
is
denied as moot; and
-- The parties meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs' [2] Motion
for
Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel and,
within
two weeks of the date of this Order, jointly submit a proposed
schedule for further proceedings.
The Parolees seek to represent this proposed class:
"All people with a disability who are, or will be, on parole or
supervised release in the District of Columbia under the
Commission's and CSOSA's supervision, and who need
accommodations
in order to have an equal opportunity to succeed on parole or
supervised release."
The Government has not responded to this motion; instead, it filed
a Motion to Stay Class Certification Proceedings pending resolution
of its Motion to Dismiss.
The Court will deny without prejudice the Parolees' class
certification motion because they failed to consult with the
Government before filing their nondispositive motion, in violation
of Local Civil Rule 7(m).
Although the Court recognizes that no defense counsel had been
assigned at the time of the motion's filing, the Court finds that
it will further the purposes of the rule to allow the parties to
meet and confer before proceeding further.
United States Parole Commission is the parole board responsible for
granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole releases
of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its jurisdiction.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MxOrSJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Parolees Entitled to Preliminary Injunction
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MATHIS and KENNEDY
DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-01312-TNM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Trevor McFadden entered
an order granting relief to those offenders who have sought it,
having established their ongoing injuries.
The Parolees are entitled to a preliminary injunction. They have
shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their Rehabilitation
Act claim, that they will face irreparable harm absent immediate
relief, and that the balance of equities and the public interest
support their request.
Given the Parolees' likelihood of success on the merits, the Court
will also deny the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.
Although the Parolees ask that the injunction also cover all
similarly situated D.C. offenders, the Court will not act so
broadly yet. Class certification issues remain to be addressed. The
Court is mindful that preliminary injunctions are an extraordinary
remedy, never granted as of right.
Finally, the Parolees seek neither the imposition nor the removal
of any particular regulation or practice. The Court’s Order thus
avoids dictating specific changes that must be made by the
Government. The Court is confident the Government will carefully
consider
modifications to ensure compliance with both the Rehabilitation Act
and the Revitalization Act. A separate Order will issue today.
United States Parole Commission is the parole board responsible for
granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole releases
of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its jurisdiction
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Sept. 5, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CQJr3b
at no extra charge.[CC]
UNIVERSITY MECHANICAL: Allmaras Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brock Allmaras, on behalf of others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSITY MECHANICAL & ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, INC.
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CU004291C was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on Sept. 5, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-01581-GPC-SBC.
The Complaint contains eleven causes of action, alleging: Failure
to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Pay
Paid Sick Leave Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Waiting Time Penalties;
Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to
Provide Records; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joshua D. Kienitz, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925.932.2468
Fax: 925.946.9809
Email: jkienitz@littler.com
- and -
P. Dustin Bodaghi, Esq.
Alejandra Gallegos, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949.705.3000
Fax: 949.724.1201
Email: dbodaghi@littler.com
agallegos@littler.com
USAA FEDERAL: Settlement Deal in Bulls Class Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP BULLS, DEAN BRINK,
CARMIN NOWLIN, NICHOLAS PADAO, and RAPHAEL RILEY, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS
BANK, and USAA SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 5:21-cv-00488-BO (E.D.N.C.),
the Hon. Judge Terrence Boyle entered an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement Agreement:
For settlement purposes only, this action is hereby preliminarily
certified and may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 on
behalf of a class (the "Class") defined as follows:
"All USAA Bank customers who (I) received and deposited a
remediation check as a result of the SCRA Remediation or the
MLA
Remediation, or (2) were identified to receive remediation
based
upon the SCRA Remediation, the MLA Remediation, the EVP
Remediation, or the DP Remediation, but did not successfully
cash
or deposit such remediation payment.
Excluded from the Class are all persons who have executed a
release of the rights claimed in this action."
Also excluded from the Class are USAA Bank; USAA Bank's
officers
and directors at all relevant times, as well as members of
their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns; and any entity in which USAA Bank has
or
had a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Class are
federal, state, and local governments and all agencies and
subdivisions thereunder; and any judge to whom this Action is
or
has been assigned and any member of his or her immediate
family."
The Court confirms and appoints Epiq Class Action and Claims
Solutions as the Administrator to administer the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and to notify and pay the Class Members.
USAA offers deposit, credit card, consumer lending, mortgage, and
other banking products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZoBN6W at no extra
charge.[CC]
VISION PATH: Filing of Class Cert Bid Amended to March 7, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WESLEY AFRICA, an
individual, v. VISION PATH, INC., d/b/a HUBBLE, a Delaware
Corporation; and, DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No.
2:23-cv-04570-GW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered
an order granting the Parties' Second Stipulation to Stay
Proceedings.
The Court amends its prior scheduling Order related to class
certification, and imposes additional deadlines as follows:
Event Scheduled Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Mediation Sept. 4, 2024 Oct. 22,
2024
Stay lifted Sept. 5, 2024 Oct. 23,
2024
Post-Mediation Status Conference Sept. 19, 2024 Nov. 24,
2024
Plaintiff's motion for Class Jan. 6, 2025 Mar. 7,
2025
Certification Brief Due
Hearing on Plaintiff's motion Mar. 13, 2025 May 15,
2025
for Class Certification
Vision Path offers direct-to-consumer contact lenses and eye
glasses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xLQK7M at no extra
charge.[CC]
VITOL INC: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re California Gasoline Spot Market
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order terminating as
moot the outstanding motion for class certification and related
filings in light of the Court's preliminary approval of the class
action settlement.
The Plaintiffs defined the class as:
"all persons or entities that purchased retail gasoline for
their
own use" within the class period in Southern California."
The suit alleges that Vitol Trading and SK Energy conspired to
manipulate the Oil Price Information Services (OPIS) spot price
indices for gasoline in the Los Angeles spot market.
The Plaintiffs further allege that defendants' conduct ultimately
drove up the price of retail gasoline and cost consumers at the
pump. Dr. Meyendorff provided a methodology to quantify the
pass-through of changes in the OPIS spot price index to retail
gasoline prices and estimate overcharges for the class.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7zEqAq at no extra
charge.[CC]
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Ruling on Class Cert Bid Pending in 6th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONYA BOWLES, v. COUNTY OF
WAYNE BY ITS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Also known as CHARTER COUNTY
OF WAYNE BY ITS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Case No.
2:23-cv-10973-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Linda Parker
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiff's motion for expedited entry of an indicative ruling
pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 62.1
The Court's class action certification decision in this matter
currently is pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for
review. Plaintiff has moved for an indicative ruling pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1.
In her proposed order granting the motion, Plaintiff sets forth how
the Court would revise the certified class if the Sixth Circuit
remanded the matter without deciding the appeal.
As the Court indicated in the Notice filed on May 17, 2024 and
during the status conference on June 18, 2024, it believes there
are substantial issues in its class certification which require
reconsideration.
The Court does not agree with Plaintiff, however, that the issues
she identifies are the specific or only matters requiring
reconsideration. In any event, if the Sixth Circuit remands the
matter, this Court intends to review the class certification.
Particularly, the Court intends to reconsider and conduct a more
rigorous analysis of whether the commonality and predominance
requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) are satisfied.
The Court additionally needs to consider the impact of the Michigan
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Schafer v. Kent County, --
N.W.2d --, 2024 WL 3573500 (Mich. July 29, 2024).
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f2ijCe at no extra
charge.[CC]
WESTERN CONFERENCE: Class Cert Discovery-Related Bids Due Sept. 20
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paieri v. Western
Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-00922 (W.D. Wash., Filed June 19, 2023), the Hon. Judge
Lauren King entered an order granting the parties' stipulated
motion to extend the deadline to file motions related to class
certification discovery.
-- Motions related to class certification discovery are now due by
Sept. 20, 2024.
-- However, if a motion is filed, the Court may move other
deadlines
accordingly to have sufficient time to resolve the issue.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).
Western Conference of Teamsters PensionTrust Fund offers
multi-employer pension plan.[CC]
WESTERN EXPRESS: Lasater Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andrew Lasater, an individual; Jonathan Garcia,
an individual on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV13738 was removed from the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Sept. 9, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07657.
The Plaintiffs asserted individual and putative class claims and
damages against Western Express for the following: Failure to
Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Provide Meal Breaks; Failure to Pay
Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Separation; Failure to
Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse
Business Expenses; Violation of California's Unfair Competition Act
("UCL").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Trevor Weinberg, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
15260 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 1520
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (213) 514-5681
Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
tw@haffnerlawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard D. Marca, Esq.
Christopher S. Milligan, Esq.
VARNER & BRANDT LLP
3750 University Ave., Ste. 610
Riverside, California 92501
Phone: (951) 274-7777
Facsimile: (951) 274-7770
Email: Richard.Marca@varnerbrandt.com
Chris.Milligan@varnerbrandt.com
WESTERN REFINING: Bid for Class Cert. Extended to Feb. 10, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE BARDEN, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL,
LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:23-cv-01360-MEMF-SK
(C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order granting the application
and orders the below deadlines be continued as follows:
Discovery cutoff: From Nov. 25, 2024 to Mar. 24, 2025
Motion for Class Certification: From Oct. 11, 2024 to Feb. 10,
2025
Opposition to Motion: From Dec. 13, 2024 to Apr. 14, 2025
Reply to Opposition to Motion: From Jan. 17, 2025 to May 19,
2025
Hearing on Motion: From Feb. 21, 2025 to June 23, 2025
Western Refining is engaged in the business of refining and
marketing crude oil and refined products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AELgCx at no extra
charge.[CC]
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Class Settlement in Nguyen Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mary Nguyen v. Westlake
Services Holding Company et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00854-FWS-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter entered an order
granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement
and approval of class notice.
The court grants provisional class certification of the following
class:
"All Plan participants whose employment with Westlake or any of
its
affiliates terminated between January 1, 2019, and March 31,
2020,
with account balances greater than $5,000 in the Plan, and the
beneficiaries of such participants (as applicable)."
The court also entered an order:
-- appointing Plaintiff Mary Nguyen as Class Representative;
-- appointing Miller Shah LLP as Class Counsel;
-- preliminarily approving the Settlement, subject to further
consideration at the final approval stage; and
-- appointing Strategic Claims Services as Settlement
Administrator.
In this putative class action, the Plaintiff Mary Nguyen brings
claims against the Defendants under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") relating to the Defendants' alleged "failure
to pay benefits under the terms of the Plan, failure to follow the
terms of the Plan, and/or abuse of their discretion in the
management of the Plan and the interpretation of the Plan."
On March 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed the FAC.
Under the Settlement, Defendants agree to pay a Gross Settlement
Amount of $1,250,000 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims, including all
claims for attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as payment of class
representative compensation and the costs of administering the
Settlement.
Westlake Services provides financial services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RxPibB at no extra
charge.[CC]
WHOLE FOODS: Class Cert Hearing in Molock Suit Set for Sept. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOLOCK, et al., v. WHOLE
FOODS MARKET, INC., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02483 (D.D.C., Filed
Dec. 20, 2016), the Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an order
setting hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to certify class for Sept.
20, 2024, at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 10.
The nature of suit states Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of
Judgment -- Breach of Contract.
Whole Foods is an American multinational supermarket chain
headquartered in Austin, Texas, which sells products free from
hydrogenated fats and artificial colors, flavors, and
preservatives.[CC]
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Granted in Wyngaard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE WYNGAARD, v.
WOODMAN'S FOOD MARKET, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00493-PP-NJ (E.D.
Wis.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order overruling the
Plaintiffs' objection to Judge Joseph's order granting the
Defendant's motion to amend the scheduling order.
The court affirms Judge Joseph's order granting the defendant's
motion to amend the scheduling order on the grounds stated above.
The court orders that if the defendant has not done so already, it
must name its expert witness one week from the date of this order.
The court orders that if the defendant has not done so already, it
must submit its expert report fifteen days from the date of this
order.
The court affirms Judge Joseph’s order that the parties must
complete discovery by Oct. 15, 2024, and must file dispositive
motions by Nov. 15, 2024.
This court's delay in ruling on the plaintiffs' objection was not
the result of a struggle on the court's part to resolve the
plaintiffs' (unfounded) objection. It is the result of a what one
might call a "glitch" in the electronic case management system.
The court referred this case to Judge Joseph for discovery
purposes; because the electronic case management system "thought"
that the case was assigned to Judge Joseph, the plaintiffs'
objection did not appear on the undersigned’s motions report.
Once the court learned that there was a pending objection to one of
Judge Joseph’s rulings, it prepared this order within days.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant committed violations of
various wage and hour laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws (WWPCL),
Illinois' Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) and Illinois' Wage Payment and
Collection Act (IWPCA).
Each of the plaintiffs brings his or her claims as a class and
collective action.
On May 8, 2024, Judge Joseph granted the defendant's motion to
amend the scheduling order and extend the deadline to name expert
witnesses.
Woodman's Food offers liquors, clothing, automotive, housewares,
and food products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8AJRmt at no extra
charge.[CC]
WORKDAY INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 12, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK L. MOBLEY, for and
on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated; v.
WORKDAY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Rita Lin entered the following case schedule:
Oct. 21, 2024 Last date to amend pleadings
Oct. 23, 2024 Case Management Conference
Feb. 6, 2025 Conditional Certification Motion
Mar. 6, 2025 Opposition to Conditional Certification
Mar. 20, 2025 Reply to Conditional Certification
Apr. 8, 2025 Conditional Certification Hearing
Sept. 12, 2025 Class Certification Motion
Oct. 3, 2025 Last day to depose expert(s)
Nov. 7, 2025 Opposition to Class Certification Motion and
motion to decertify
Dec. 5, 2025 Reply to Class Certification Motion and
opposition to motion to decertify
Jan. 27, 2026 Class Certification Hearing
Workday is an American on‑demand financial management, human
capital management, and student information system software
vendor.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JSSmU9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Julie A. Totten, Esq.
Erin M. Connell, Esq.
Kayla D. Grundy, Esq.
Alexandria R. Elliott, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
Telephone: (415) 773-5700
Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
E-mail: jatotten@orrick.com
econnell@orrick.com
kgrundy@orrick.com
aelliottt@orrick.com
WORLD AUTOMOTIVE: Alfer Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against World Automotive
Joliet LLC. The case is styled as Thomas Alfer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. World Automotive Joliet
LLC doing business as: World Kia Joliet, Case No. 1:24-cv-08338
(N.D. Ill., Sept. 12, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
World Kia Joliet -- https://worldkiajoliet.com/ -- is a dealership
in Joliet, Illinois with a large inventory of vehicles for
sale.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
YOUNG ADULT: Class Settlement in Lagunas Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANA RIOS LAGUNAS, v.
YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00654-RS (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered a final approval order and
judgment as follows:
-- The Aggrieved Employees are defined as all current and former
hourly, nonexempt employees employed by Defendant in California
any time between January 29, 2022, and December 23, 2023.
-- SWCK is finally appointed as Class Counsel, and Plaintiff Joana
Rios Lagunas is finally appointed as the Class Representative.
-- The appointment of Phoenix Class Action Administration
Solutions
as Settlement Administrator is confirmed and its reasonable
administration costs of $12,000.00, which are to be paid from
the
Gross Settlement Amount, are approved.
-- Centro Legal de La Raza is approved as the cy pres recipient in
the event there are funds remaining after distribution of the
Settlement Awards.
Young Adult is an organization serving people with Intellectual and
developmental disabilities in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=boSYmM at no extra
charge.[CC]
YOUNG CONSULTING: Faces Sweitzer Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK SWEITZER, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04053-TWT (N.D. Ga., September 9, 2024)
arises from Defendant's negligent failure to protect and safeguard
Plaintiff's and the Class’s highly sensitive personally
identifiable information.
As a result of Defendant's negligence and insufficient data
security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's
inadequately protected computer systems and stole the PII of
Plaintiff and the Class (approximately 954,177 individuals) between
April 10, 2024, and April 13, 2024. Moreover, the Defendant only
began sending Notice of Data Breach Letters, informing victims of
the data breach that their information was subject to unauthorized
access, on or around August 26, 2024.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and on
behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive
damages, nominal damages, restitution, and injunctive and
declaratory relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and all
other remedies the court deems proper.
Headquartered in Chicago, Young Consulting, LLC provides software
solutions for the marketing, underwriting, and administering of
medical stop loss insurance for carriers, brokers, and third-party
administrators. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Tullos Oliver, Esq.
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
Facsimile: (770) 227-6373
E-mail: ktullos@barneslawgroup.com
ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
kpb@federmanlaw.com
YOUNG CONSULTING: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Mecocci Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
GIULIO MECOCCI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04045-TWT (N.D. Ga., September 9, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal
health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
customers stored within its network systems following a data breach
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 risk management services,
with a principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Tullos Oliver, Esq.
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
Facsimile: (770) 227-6373
Email: ktullos@barneslawgroup.com
ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
Daniel L.M. Pulgram, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union St., Ste. 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
Email: aschubert@sjk.law
dpulgram@sjk.law
YOUNG LIVING: O'Shaughnessy Must File Class Cert Reply by Sept. 20
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE O'SHAUGHNESSY,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, v. YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC D/B/A YOUNG LIVING
ESSENTIAL OILS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00470-HCN-CMR (D. Utah), the Hon.
Judge Cecilia Romero entered an order granting Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Extensions of Time:
-- The Plaintiff's deadlines to file her Reply in support of
the
Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in support of Motion for
Class Certification and her Response to Defendant's Motion
for
Reconsideration are extended by nine days until Sept. 20,
2024.
Young Living sells essential oils and other related products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fD9Er7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ZANDER GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jones Extended to Sept. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM H. "CHIP" JONES,
II, v. ZANDER GROUP HOLDINGS, INC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00687
(M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Alistair Newbern entered an order
granting the joint motion to amend the case management order
extending the deadline for Plaintiff to file for class
certification by 30 days, which would make the new deadline Sept.
27, 2024.
The Parties request that the class certification response and reply
periods remain as set forth in the Initial Case Management Order,
at 28 days and 14 days, respectively (i.e., Oct. 25, 2024, and Nov.
8, 2024).
Such an amendment would have no bearing on the other remaining
deadlines currently set in the Initial Case Management Order, which
are as follows:
-- Deadline for the Parties to serve written Sept. 2, 2024
Discovery:
-- Deadline for the Parties to complete all Oct. 14, 2024
written discovery, depose all fact witnesses,
and file all motions related to fact
discovery:
-- Deadline for Plaintiff to identify and Nov. 14, 2024
disclose all expert witnesses and expert
reports:
-- Deadline for Defendants to identify and Dec. 20, 2024
disclose all expert witnesses and expert
reports:
-- Deadline for the Parties to depose all Jan. 31, 2025
expert witnesses:
-- Deadline for the Parties to file Feb. 28, 2025
dispositive motions:
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9jcZvx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seamus T. Kelly, Esq.
David J. Goldman, Esq.
MUSIC CITY LAW, PLLC
1033 Demonbreun Street, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 200-0682
E-mail: seamus@musiccityfirm.com
david@musiccityfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
Sarah M. Adams, Esq.
Shaun A. Gates, Esq.
Lawrence A. Brett, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 861-6615
Facsimile: (202) 659-4503
E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com
sadams@groom.com
sgates@groom.com
- and -
Mark E. Stamelos, Esq.
FORDHARRISON LLP
150 Third Ave South, Suite 2010
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 574-6700
Facsimile: (615) 574-6701
E-mail: mstamelos@fordharrison.com
ZARBEE'S INC: Dec. 6 Hearing on Class Certification Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL LOPEZ and DAMANY
BROWNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ZARBEE'S, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-04465-CRB (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order the proposed
deadlines as follows:
Event Deadline
Zarbee's Daubert Motion(s) Regarding Sept. 27, 2024
Plaintiffs' Class Certification Experts
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Zarbee's Oct. 25, 2024
Daubert Motion(s) Regarding Plaintiffs'
Class Certification Experts
Zarbee's Reply in Support of its Daubert Nov. 12, 2024
Motion(s) Regarding Plaintiffs' Class
Certification Experts
Hearings on (i) Plaintiffs' Motion for Dec. 6, 2024
Class Certification and (ii) Zarbee's
Daubert Motion(s) Regarding Plaintiffs'
Class Certification Experts
The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification with expert
reports on Aug. 2, 2024.
Zarbee's produces pharmaceutical products. The Company offers
vitamins, supplements, immune support, throat relief, and other
related products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aJH89o at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
Josh Kipnees, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Telephone: (212) 336-2110
Facsimile: (212) 336-2111
E-mail: sazalesin@pbwt.com
jkipnees@pbwt.com
- and -
Gary T. Lafayette, Esq.
Brian H. Chun, Esq.
SANDERS ROBERTS LLP
1300 Clay Street, Suite 810
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 357-4600
Facsimile: (415) 357-4605
E-mail: glafayette@sandersroberts.com
bchun@sandersroberts.com
ZHONG WEN ZHENG: Cheli Sues Over Discriminative Property
--------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Cheli, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf
of all other similarly situated mobility impaired persons v. ZHONG
WEN ZHENG, an Individual, & GOOD FLAVOR VINELAND LLC, a New Jersey
Limited Liability Company & MAIN LAUNDROMAT LLC, a New Jersey
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-09073 (D.N.J., Sept.
10, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD")
as a result of the Defendant property being discriminative to
mobility impaired persons.
The Defendants' property is a strip mall/shopping center/plaza with
two tenant spaces located at 44 S. Main Rd, Vineland, NJ 08360,
Cumberland County (the "Property").
The Plaintiff encounters architectural barriers at many of the
places that she visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features
such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for
granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or
implemented, can be arduous and even dangerous to those in
wheelchairs.
The Plaintiff has visited the Property on many occasions, her last
visit as a patron of the occurred on or about August 12, 2024. The
Plaintiff visited the Property as a bone fide patron with the
intent to avail herself of the goods and services offered to the
public within but found that the Property was littered with
violations of the ADA, both in architecture and policy. Main Road
Laundromat is the closest laundry to facility to the Plaintiff's
home.
The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property remains
non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable
grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to
discrimination by the Defendants, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a staunch advocate of the ADA since becoming
mobility impaired.
ZHONG WEN ZHENG, owns/operates a place of public accommodation, in
this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
SHADINGER LAW, LLC
717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
Vineland, NJ 08360
Phone: (609) 319-5399
Email: js@shadingerlaw.com
[*] Onslaught of Nutrient-Based Claims on Food Labels Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Micheletti, writing for Supermarket News, reports that the
onslaught of health claim-related false advertising lawsuit filings
against food and beverage producers continues -- particularly in
California federal courts. Cases recently filed against Wm. Wrigley
Jr. Co. and The Hershey Co. illustrate class action plaintiffs'
lawyers' increasingly sophisticated attacks on food companies'
nutrient content claims.
In the Wrigley case, the plaintiffs allege that Wrigley's "sugar
free" and "sugarless" claims made on certain gum and hard candy
products are misleading because the products contain calorie levels
that are too high according to federal labeling regulations. They
also claim that the products do not contain a disclaimer that, for
example, the product is "not for weight control," a requirement
plaintiffs assert is triggered by federal regulations as well.
Plaintiffs also assert that Wrigley misstates the true serving size
of the products and falsely conveys that the product has fewer
calories per serving than it actually has.
Plaintiffs in the Hershey case -- who are represented by the same
set of lawyers as in the Wrigley and whose claims were filed in the
same court on the same day -- also challenge nutrient content
claims made on Hershey's dark chocolate and cocoa products labeling
and its websites. The labeling of these products notes that, for
example, "cocoa is a natural source of flavanol antioxidants."
Relying again on federal regulations, the plaintiffs claim that
Hershey cannot make reference to antioxidants at all because there
is no recommended daily intake amounts for flavonoids and because
there is insufficient proof that flavonoids convey the health
benefits asserted.
Also, plaintiffs claim that because the products contain certain
levels of sodium and saturated fat, Hershey cannot make the
antioxidant claims without also making a saturated fat disclosure
statement required by federal regulations.
What do these recent filings mean for food and beverage makers
touting the health benefits of their products? Are these complaints
"more of the same" or are they opening a new wave in the false
advertising cases onslaught?
Unlike many of the more simple cases filed over the past few years,
these complaints rely heavily on federal regulations governing
nutrient claims. These cases make it clear that plaintiff lawyers
are now meticulously scouring food labels for nutrient-based claims
that might run afoul of highly detailed and technical federal
labeling requirements. Once alleged violations of federal
regulations are located, they provide a basis for alleging false
advertising claims under plaintiff-friendly California laws.
With these and other recent filings, food and beverage company
marketing departments must be ever-vigilant in ensuring that they
have followed all applicable regulations and included all necessary
disclaimers that might be triggered by health-related nutrient
claims and other label statements. So long as food and beverage
makers continue to tout their products' health benefits, there will
be no shortage of plaintiff lawyers willing to fly-speck labels for
potential claims and these cases will continue to be filed. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
*********
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 ***