/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240923.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, September 23, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 191
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Elliott Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Ellison Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Ferguson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: George Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Gonzalez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ADVANCE AUTO: Shareholder Suits Over SEC Disclosures Consolidated
AJ BLOSENSKI: All Fact Discovery in Salyers Suit Due Oct. 9
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Unseals Class Cert Order in Kronenberg
ALORICA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Munoz Extended to Nov. 8
AMAZING TIRES: Banks Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bretto Suit Tossed
AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
AROVAST CORPORATION: Tao Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Circuit
ASCENDUM MACHINERY: Filing of Class Status Bid Due August 6, 2025
AVANADE INC: Parties Seek July 18, 2025 Class Certification Filing
AYVAZ PIZZA: Savannah Seeks More Time for Class Cert Discovery
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for Sept. 30
BANK OF AMERICA: Gets Final Judgment v. Abdollah Nia
BANK OF AMERICA: Tristan File Certain Class Cert Docs Under Seal
BANK OF AMERICA: Tristan Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
BANNER LIFE: Thompson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit
BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Sued Over Illegal Disclosure of PII
BLOOMBERG LP: All Expert Discovery in Ndugga Due Oct. 30
BLUEFYN INC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BOURBON COUNTY, KY: Shannon Loses Bid to Certify Damaged Class
BUCKLEY CABLE: Laney Wins Class Certification Bid
CACTUS HOME: Class Cert Bid Filing in MacDonald Due August 6, 2025
CARLA CLOVER: Court Dismisses Howard Suit
CH ROBINSON: Court Tosses Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification
CINFED FEDERAL: Proposed Settlement Deal Gets Initial Nod
CITIZENS DISABILITY: Shutler TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 6, 2025
DANIEL MARKUS: Lustig Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
DOORDASH INC: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Campaign Calls
DOWNTOWN FLWR: Igartua Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DR. SQUATCH LLC: Bruno Files Suit in C.D. California
DROP TECHNOLOGIES: Boukhny Sues Over Deceptive Practices
EDWARD JONES: Bid for Leave to File Surreply Granted in Dixon Suit
ELECTROLUX HOME: Elward Files 7th Circuit Appeal
ESTEE LAUDER INC: Battle Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
FLAGSTAR STAFFING: Bowser Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Jennings Suit Tossed
GKN DRIVELINE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply in Carson
GKN DRIVELINE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Ayers
GNL CORP: Joint Discovery Plan in Lester Suit Tossed
GOODPRESS PUBLISHING: Reardon Seeks to Conduct Class Certification
GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs' Opening Expert Reports Amended to Oct. 4
GRAND AMERICA: Jan. 20, 2025 Class Cert Bid Deadline Sought
HANMI FINANCIAL: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
HARMONY LEADS INC: Ragsdale Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
HEARST TELEVISION: Saunders Can File Certain Documents Under Seal
HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Court Extends Time to File Stipulation
INTERNATIONAL STAR: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 20, 2025
INTUIT INC: Class Cert Bid in Rodriguez Extended to Jan. 16, 2025
ITG COMMUNICATIONS: Initial Discovery in Stenberg Suit Due Dec. 20
J&C AMBULANCE: Parties Seek More Time to File Reply Briefs
J-B WELD: Cross Bids for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
KABANCE PHOTO: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Mayhew Suit
KELLER WILLIAMS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 18
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Endorses Class Status in Hobbs
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Dickson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 6, 2025
LOUDON OPCO: Fritts Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LTF CLUB: Seeks to Strike Declarations of Putative Class Members
M&M TRANSPORT: Burton Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
MARUKAI CORP: Faces Ceballos Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 24, 2025
META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 21, 2025
META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek Jul 21, 2025 Class Cert. Bid Filing
MIDLAND CREDIT: Stevens Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. West Virginia
MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Settlement Class Gets Conditional Status
MTI TIRES: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Petty Suit
NIBBI BROS. INC: Diaz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NICHOLAS HINES: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Kuhlman Suit
NORTH MEMORIAL: Johnson Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
NOVO NORDISK: Fumich Sues Over Security Act Violation
NYC DISINFECTION: Faces Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PAC HOUSING: Hills Seeks More Time for Class Cert Discovery
PALO ALTO: Patterson Seeks Conditional Status of Delivery Drivers
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Court OKs $14MM Securities Suit Settlement
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint
PENNEY OPCO: Must Oppose Arguelles Class Cert Bid by Oct. 22
PINCKNEYVILLE COMMUNITY: Sued Over Illegal Disclosure of PII & PHI
RELIABLE STAFFING: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 5, 2025
RUSSELECTRIC INC: Must Oppose Bowers Class Cert Bid by Oct. 24
RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Standing Order Entered in Ukraine Class Suit
SAMS WEST: Sanchez Loses Bid to Certify Class and Subclasses
SAZERAC COMPANY: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply Tossed
SECURITAS SECURITY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 13, 2025
SKY CLIMBER WIND: Henderson Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
SNOWFLAKE INC: Hollis Files Suit in D. Montana
SPINRITE HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Claims
ST. CAMILLUS NURSING: Laskowski Wins Class Certification Bid
STAKE CENTER: Monroe Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
STAPLES CONTRACT: Felix Suit Removed to C.D. California
STERLING METS: Sells Biometric Identifier Info, Dowling Says
STEVE CORSI: Court Dismisses Filyaw Class Suit
STONEPEAK CERAMICS: Seeks More Time to File Response to Notice
STREETTEAM SOFTWARE: Ulmer Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
SUB-ZERO GROUP: Bankhurst Seeks Stay of Merits-Based Proceedings
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Parties in Aquino Seek Permanent Sealing of Docs
T-MOBILE USA INC: Gomez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
TAMAQUA TRANSFER: Filing for Conditional Status Due Jan. 6, 2025
TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert Reply in Nguyen-Wilhite Due Sept. 20
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Response to Class Cert Bids in Thomas Due Oct. 3
TELMATE LLC: Cooper Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Oct. 17, 2025
UNITED PARCEL: Discovery Stayed in Orr Class Action
UNITED STATES: Settlement Stipulation Filing Due Nov. 12
UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
UNITED SURGICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Perkins Due Nov. 8
US DHS: Sued Over Unlawful Refusal Policy and Practice
VANGUARD GROUP: Oral Argument Set for Oct. 22 in Funds Litigation
VEOLIA NORTH: Bid to Exclude Expert's Opinions Partly OK'd
WEEDS R US: Igartua Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
WILLIAM LEE: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Tossed
WILLIAM MCDONALD: Wilkerson's FAC Dismissed w/o Prejudice
WILSON & COMPANY: Senecal Files Suit in D. New Mexico
WSCO PETROLEUM: Dale Suit Removed to D. Oregon
ZOOM VIDEO: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint
ZOOM VIDEO: To Settle Securities Suit in CA Court
*********
3M COMPANY: Elliott Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Elliott, 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-04989-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: Ellison Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Ellison, 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-04975-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: Ferguson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Ferguson, 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-04966-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: George Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward George, 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-04994-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: Gonzalez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Gonzalez, 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-04962-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
ADVANCE AUTO: Shareholder Suits Over SEC Disclosures Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended July 13, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 22, 2024, that on October 9, 2023 and
October 27, 2023, respectively, two putative class actions on
behalf of purchasers of its securities who purchased or otherwise
acquired their securities between November 16, 2022 and May 30,
2023, were commenced against the company and certain of its former
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.
On June 21, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated and amended complaint..
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made certain false and
materially misleading statements during the alleged Class Period in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. These cases are still in
preliminary stages and we expect that they will be consolidated.
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and subsidiaries is an automotive
aftermarket parts provider in North America, serving both
professional installers and do-it-yourself customers. As of October
7, 2023, it operated a total of 4,785 stores and 320 branches
primarily within the United States, with additional locations in
Canada, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
AJ BLOSENSKI: All Fact Discovery in Salyers Suit Due Oct. 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY SALYERS, v. A.J.
BLOSENSKI, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-04802-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:
1. All fact discovery shall be completed by Oct. 9, 2024.
2. Any expert reports relating to class certification are due no
later than Oct. 23, 2024. Any rebuttal reports relating to
class
certification are due on Nov. 6, 2024.
3. Any discovery depositions of expert witnesses relating to
class
certification shall be completed by Nov. 12, 2024.
4. Any motions for class certification and/or Daubert motions
regarding expert witnesses relating to class certification
shall
be filed and served on or before Nov. 13, 2024.
5. Any expert reports relating to the merits of the case are due
no
later than 120 days after the Court’s disposition of any
motions
for class certification.
A.J. Blosenski is a full service garbage disposal and recycling
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6uuX9K at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Unseals Class Cert Order in Kronenberg
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kronenberg v. Allstate
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06899 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Dec. 4, 2018), the Hon. Judge Hector Gonzalez entered an order that
since no party moves to seal the Court's Order on class
certification, the Court therefore unseals the Order.
-- The Plaintiffs state that they intend to voluntarily dismiss
Defendant Allstate Insurance Company and do not intend to file
a
renewed motion for class certification.
-- The parties also seek the entry of a briefing schedule
concerning
dispositive motions.
-- The Court adopts the parties' proposed schedule in part. On or
before Oct. 24, 2024, the parties are directed to file a notice
of
voluntary dismissal with respect to Defendant Allstate
Insurance
Company.
-- On or before that same date, the parties are also directed to
file
a notice of voluntary dismissal with respect to Defendant
Allstate
Fire, but to the extent that any claims are not disposed of by
that date, any party seeking to file a dispositive motion with
respect to Defendant Allstate Fire shall file a pre-motion
letter
in accordance with Section IV.A of the Court's Individual
Rules.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Personal Property Damage.
Allstate is an American insurance company, headquartered in
Glenview, Illinois since 2022.[CC]
ALORICA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Munoz Extended to Nov. 8
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON MUNOZ, and MELISSA
OLSEN, individually and as a representative of a Putative Class of
Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the ALORICA 401 (K)
RETIREMENT PLAN, v. ALORICA, INC.; ALORICA RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN
COMMITTEE; LISA ADAMSHICK; JOYCE TODD-GUERRA; CHRIS HYUN; ELIZABETH
LAN PAN; EMILY KILGORE; RICK HAYES; DEON STENNER; MATTHEW VONDETTE;
DAN FINNEGAN; JAE CHANEY; MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 8:22-cv-01856-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge John Holcomb entered an order granting the parties'
stipulation regarding enlargement of time to file motion for class
certification:
a. The Plaintiffs to file their motion by Nov. 8, 2024;
b. Alorica Defendants and MSSB Defendant to file their
responses
by Nov. 26, 2024;
c. The Plaintiffs to file their reply by Dec. 13, 2024; and
d. the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
is
set for Jan. 7, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.
Alorica is a global leader in customer experience solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bm30dp at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZING TIRES: Banks Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rasheen Banks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AMAZING TIRES INC., MICHAEL TROIANO, and JOHN DOE, a
fictitious name for an unknown owner and manager of AMAZING TIRES
INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-06394 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2024), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") and the supporting New York State Department of
Labor regulations as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay
minimum wages or overtime compensation.
The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff minimum wages or overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at
a rate of one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay.
Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a compliant wage notice
at the time of his hiring, or any time, thereafter, as required by
NYLL. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with complete and
accurate paystubs with his weekly earnings as required by NYLL,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as tire technician for Defendants From
January 2018 through January 2023.
Amazing Tires Inc. is a domestic corporation, having its principal
place of business located in Central Islip, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yale Pollack, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
66 Split Rock Road
Syosset, NY 11791
Phone: (516) 634-6340
Email: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bretto Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE BRETTO and NAOMI
KOPINSKY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
v. AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02317-DDC-ADM
(D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Crabtree entered an order denying
AMC's request to compel arbitration.
-- AMC's website didn't provide sufficient notice to bind the
Plaintiffs. The court denies AMC's request to stay briefing on
its
Combined Motion.
-- But it grants AMC's alternative request to withdraw the Motion
to
Dismiss portion of its Combined Motion without prejudice to
refiling. The court thus denies the entirety of AMC's Combined
Motion: It denies AMC's Motion to Compel Arbitration on the
merits, and it denies AMC's Motion to Dismiss as moot.
The Plaintiffs Jasmine Bretto and Naomi Kopinsky, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, brought this proposed class
action lawsuit against the defendant. The Plaintiffs allege that
after they purchased movie tickets from its website, AMC violated
the Video Protection Privacy Act (VPPA) by sharing statutorily
protected information with Facebook. AMC then filed a Combined
Motion to Compel Arbitration, or in the Alternative, to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim.
AMC is a movie theater operators.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RsHRnX at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Arinatwe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No.
0:24-cv-61678-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2024), is brought for
unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA") and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA").
The Defendant has a policy or practice of failing to include all
remuneration paid to the employee (including non-discretionary
bonuses, flat fees, piece rates, and similar forms of
production-based or incentive compensation) in calculating overtime
rates paid to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for work
in excess of 40 hours per week. This resulted and results in
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees receiving less overtime
wages than they are entitled to receive under the FLSA and VOWA,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Virginia who was employed by
Defendant in Virginia from 2020 to November 2023 as a mobile
phlebotomist.
The Defendant is a laboratory services company that provides mobile
phlebotomy and similar services to nursing homes, long-term care
facilities, and similar healthcare facilities throughout the
county.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 Southeast 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (954) 871-0050
Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
- and -
Zev Antell, Esq.
BUTLERCURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: 804.648.4848
Email: zev@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Timothy Coffield, Esq.
COFFIELD PLC
106-F Melbourne Park Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phone: (434) 218-3133
Fax: (434) 321-163
AROVAST CORPORATION: Tao Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NAM TAO is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the
lawsuit entitled Jeanette Finch and Nam Tao, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Arovast
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00599-JWH-JDE, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for its unfair and deceptive business
practices of manufacturing, distributing, marketing, and selling
defective air fryers.
On May 19, 2023, Plaintiff Jeanette Finch filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal through which she dismissed all of her claims
against Defendant Arovast Corporation, doing business as Cosori
Corporation.
On May 31, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, which the Court granted through an
Order entered by Judge John W. Holcomb on Aug. 26, 2024. Judge
Holcomb held that Plaintiff Jeannette Finch is DISMISSED. The
claims of Plaintiff Nam Tao against Defendant Cosori are DISMISSED
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The case is DISMISSED.
Other than potential post-judgment remedies (including those
provided in Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), to
the extent that any party requests any other form of relief, such
request is DENIED, opined the court.
The appellate case is captioned Tao, et al. v. Arovast Corporation,
Case No. 24-5413, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on September 5, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 10,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on October 15, 2024;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due November 14, 2024.
[BN]
ASCENDUM MACHINERY: Filing of Class Status Bid Due August 6, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN CAPIAU, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. ASCENDUM MACHINERY,
INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00142-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
Susan Rodriguez entered a pretrial order and case management plan
as follows:
Rule 26 Disclosures: Oct. 4, 2024
Deadline to Amend Pleadings: Jan. 6, 2025
Phase One Discovery Completion: July 6, 2025
Class Certification Expert Reports:
Plaintiffs: May 6, 2025
Defendant: June 6, 2025
Supplementations under Rule 26(e): July 6, 2025
Rule 23 Class Certification Motions: Aug. 6, 2025
Mediation: Oct. 6, 2025
Ascendum is a construction equipment dealer in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2VnxtK at no extra
charge.[CC]
AVANADE INC: Parties Seek July 18, 2025 Class Certification Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON LAIRD,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AVANADE, INC., a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-04237-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order to continue the class certification
motion and related deadlines set forth in its April 23, 2024 Order
as follows:
Current Proposed
Deadlines Continued
Deadlines
Class Certification Discovery Nov. 18, 2024 May 19,
2025
Cutoff:
Motion for Class Certification Jan. 17, 2025 July 18,
2025
Deadline:
Opposition to Motion for Class Feb. 17, 2025 Aug. 18,
2025
Certification Deadline:
Reply ISO Motion for Class March 3, 2025 Sept. 2,
2025
Certification Deadline:
Hearing on Motion for Class April 4, 2025 Oct. 3,
2025
Certification:
The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint against Defendant in
the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco on June 28, 2023, which alleged three causes of action
for violations of the federal Fair Credit and Reporting Act and
California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act.
The Court issued a Case Management Order establishing various
deadlines regarding Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion on Nov.
15,
2023.
The Parties have agreed to participate in private mediation with
professional mediator, Tripper Ortman, Esq., in February 2025.
Avanade is a global professional services company providing IT
consulting and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A8ErP1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Allen Feghali, Esq.
Jacquelyne VanEmmerik, Esq.
MOON LAW GROUP, P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com
afeghali@moonlawgroup.com
jvanemmerik@moonlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq.
Tristan R. Kirk, Esq.
Zarouhi Papazyan, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-1000
Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
E-mail: jfife@winston.com
tkirk@winston.com
zpapazyan@winston.com
AYVAZ PIZZA: Savannah Seeks More Time for Class Cert Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALESHA SAVANNAH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AYVAZ PIZZA, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, Case No. 1:23-cv-00933-VMC
(N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
extending the deadlines for Class Certification discovery, and the
subsequent briefing schedule.
The Parties agree that the extension of the deadlines set forth in
the Court's Order is necessary at this time for the following
reasons.
First, Plaintiff's pending motion for leave to amend the complaint
remains outstanding. Should the Court grant the motion, Plaintiff's
motion for class certification would need to be realigned to
incorporate the additional locations.
Second, and while discovery has been progressing, the Parties have
not conducted the relevant depositions as the entry of the
protective order would alter the way the documents can be used both
in depositions and Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Accordingly, the Parties jointly move this Court to extend the
deadlines for Class Certification discovery, and the subsequent
briefing schedule by fifty (50) days, or by 50 days from the
Court's Order on Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the
complaint.
On May 21, 2024, the Court reviewed the parties Joint Preliminary
Report and Discovery Plan and ordered, the following deadlines:
-- Motion to Amend Pleadings: May 31, 2024
-- Class Certification Discovery: Sept. 15, 2024
-- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Oct. 15, 2024
Certification:
-- Defendant's Response to Class Nov. 15, 2024
Certification:
-- Plaintiff's Reply Brief: Nov. 29, 2024.
On May 31, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint.
Ayvaz is the second largest Pizza Hut franchisee in the US.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P9GMqt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan T. Porter, Esq.
NYE, STIRLING, HALE,
MILLER & SWEET, LLP
33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 963-2345
E-mail: jordan@nshmlaw.com
- and -
Kevin S. Simon, Esq.
Scott C. Fanning, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP-IL
10 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 346-8061
E-mail: ksimon@fisherphillips.com
sfanning@fisherphillips.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE TRISTAN, AVANTIKA
AHUJA, and PHILLIP MYERS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
8:22-cv-01183-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Carter
entered an order Consolidating the hearing on the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and the hearing on Defendant's
motion for summary judgment in a single hearing to be held on Sept.
30, 2024, at 8:30am.
-- All other deadlines remain in place.
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O7k1U0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Gets Final Judgment v. Abdollah Nia
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mohammad Farshad Abdollah
Nia, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated, v. Bank
of America, N.A. Case No. 3:21-cv-01799-BAS-BJC (S.D. Cal.), the
Court entered an order granting final judgment in favor of the
Defendant on Plaintiff's claims arising under the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") as set forth in the Court's March
26, 2024, order denying motion for class certification and partial
summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part cross motion
for summary judgment, and denying motions to exclude opinions.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5jCyJ2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Tristan File Certain Class Cert Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE TRISTAN, AVANTIKA
AHUJA, and PHILLIP MYERS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and EARLY WARNING
SERVICES, LLC D/B/A ZELLEPAY.COM Case No. 8:22-cv-01183-DOC-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' application to file certain documents in support of
reply to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and for
appointment of class counsel under seal.
The Court orders the Plaintiffs to file under seal the exhibits
below attached to the Declaration of Jason A. Ibey in Support of
Plaintiffs' application:
Document Portion to be Sealed
Exhibit 41 to Ibey Decl. ISO Full Seal
Plaintiffs' Application
Exhibit 42 to Ibey Decl. ISO Full Seal
Plaintiffs' Application
Exhibit 43 to Ibey Decl. ISO Partial Seal
Plaintiffs' Application
Exhibit 47 to Ibey Decl. ISO Full Seal
Plaintiffs' Application
The Reply, Supplemental Declaration of Jeffrey A Hansen, and some
of the exhibits filed contemporaneously thereto contain information
defendant Bank of America, N.A. has designated "Confidential"
pursuant to parties' Protective Order in this matter.
The parties conferred on Sept. 9, 2024, to confirm whether the
Defendant would not oppose the Plaintiffs' application with respect
to documents designated by the Defendant as Confidential.
The Defendant indicated that it has no objection.
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=09i2Ac at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Tristan Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE TRISTAN, AVANTIKA
AHUJA, and PHILLIP MYERS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and EARLY WARNING
SERVICES, LLC D/B/A ZELLEPAY.COM, Case No. 8:22-cv-01183-DOC-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting leave to file the following documents under seal under
Local Rule 79-5.2.2(a):
Document Portion to be Sealed
Exhibit 41 to Ibey Decl. ISO Full Seal
Plaintiffs' Application
Exhibit 42 to Ibey Decl. ISO Full Seal
Plaintiffs' Application
Exhibit 43 to Ibey Decl. ISO Partial Seal
Plaintiffs' Application
Exhibit 47 to Ibey Deel. ISO Full Seal
Plaintiffs' Application
The Reply, Supplemental Declaration of Jeffrey A Hansen, and some
of the exhibits filed contemporaneously thereto contain information
defendant Bank of America, N.A. has designated "Confidential"
pursuant to parties' Protective Order in this matter.
The parties conferred on Sept. 9, 2024, to confirm whether the
Defendant would not oppose the Plaintiffs' application with respect
to documents designated by the Defendant as Confidential.
The Defendant indicated that it has no objection.
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bv20hE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
Gil Melili, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
pamela@kazlg.com
gil@kazlg.com
jason@kazlg.com
- and -
Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
Chris N. Ryder, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
E-mail: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com
cryder@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Sophia G. Gold
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: edwin@shamisgentile.com
BANNER LIFE: Thompson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT THOMPSON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Robert Thompson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Banner Life Insurance
Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01096-SPM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Effingham
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of
the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act.
On May 31, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.
On June 13, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendant moved to dismiss on June 27, 2024.
On Aug. 5, 2024, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn. The
Court ruled that because the Plaintiff cannot state a claim for
relief under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act and,
therefore, because further amendment of his amended complaint would
be futile, the action is dismissed with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Robert Thompson v. Banner Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 24-2563, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on September 5, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Andrzej Tarnasiewicz-Heldut, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
Defendant-Appellee BANNER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:
Meghan Dalton, Esq.
CLYDE & CO LLP
30 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 635-7000
BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Sued Over Illegal Disclosure of PII
------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, John Doe, and Jack Doe, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Bayhealth Medical Center Inc., d/b/a
Bayhealth, Case No. N24C-09-002 FJJ (Del. Super. Ct., Sept. 10,
2024), is brought to address Defendant's outrageous, illegal, and
widespread practice of disclosing the confidential Personally
Identifying Information ("PII") and/or Protected Health
Information2 ("PHI") (collectively referred to as "Private
Information") of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members to third
parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook" or
"Meta"), Google, LLC, Microsoft, Inc. and potentially others ("the
Disclosure").
Despite its unique position as a massive and trusted healthcare
provider, Defendant knowingly configured and implemented into its
website(s), https://www.bayhealth.org/ and
https://epmychart.bayhealth.org/Mychart/Authentication/Login?
(collectively, the "Website") code-based tracking devices known as
"trackers" or "tracking technologies," which collected and
transmitted patients' Private Information to Facebook, and other
third parties, such as Google and Microsoft, without patients'
knowledge or authorization.
The Defendant encourages patients to use its Website, along with
its various web-based tools and services (collectively, the "Online
Platforms"), to learn about Bayhealth on its website homepage, to
find doctors, to find medical services, to search the Website,
including for personal medical treatment information, to access a
patient portal, to pay bills, and more.
The Plaintiffs and the Class Members visited Defendant's Online
Platforms in relation to their past, present, and future health,
healthcare and/or payment for health care. When Plaintiffs and
Class Members used Defendant's Website and Online Platforms, they
thought they were communicating exclusively with their trusted
healthcare provider. Unbeknownst to them, Defendant embedded pixels
from Facebook, Google, and Microsoft into its Website and Online
Platforms, surreptitiously forcing Plaintiffs and Class Members to
transmit intimate details about their medical treatment to third
parties without their consent.
Despite willfully and intentionally incorporating the Meta Pixel,
potentially CAPI, and other third-party trackers into its Website
and servers, Defendant has never disclosed to Plaintiffs or Class
Members that it shared their Information with Facebook, Google,
Microsoft, and possibly others. The Defendant further made express
and implied promises to protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
Private Information and maintain the privacy and confidentiality of
communications that patients exchanged with Defendant. The
Defendant owed common law, statutory, regulatory, and contractual
duties to keep Plaintiffs' and Class Members' communications and
Private Information safe, secure, and confidential.
Furthermore, by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a
benefit from Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information,
Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals
to protect and to safeguard their information from unauthorized
disclosure, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are patients of Defendant and victims of its
unauthorized disclosure of Private Information.
The Defendant provides medical services including, but not limited
to: Cancer Care; Emergency Care; Heart & Vascular; Imaging;
Neurosciences; Orthopedics; Surgical Services; Therapist; and
Women's & Children's Health.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dean R. Roland, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A.
The Brandywine Building
1000 N. West St., Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 984-3851
Email: droland@coochtaylor.com
BLOOMBERG LP: All Expert Discovery in Ndugga Due Oct. 30
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Naula Ndugga et al. v.
Bloomberg L.P., Case No. 1:20-cv-07464-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Gabriel Gorenstein entered an order amending the operative
case management plan and scheduling order as follows:
-- All expert discovery shall be completed Oct. 30, 2024
no later than:
-- Any request for a pre-motion conference concerning a Motion for
Summary Judgment, as required by the Court’s individual rules
and
practices, shall be filed by no later than 15 days from the
Court's decision on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
-- The joint pretrial order shall be due 30 days from the close of
expert discovery, or, if a request for pre-motion conference on
a
motion for class certification is made or a motion for class
certification is filed, then 60 days from a ruling on class
certification.
Bloomberg is an American privately held financial, software, data,
and media company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oPSxvh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Eleven Times Square
New York, NY 10036-8299
Member of the Firm
Telephone: (212) 969-3410
Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com
BLUEFYN INC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Edery Herrera, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. BLUEFYN INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06887
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 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://nathanjames.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.
BLUEFYN INC., operates the Nathan James online retail store, as
well as the Nathan James 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
BOURBON COUNTY, KY: Shannon Loses Bid to Certify Damaged Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK SHANNON, V. BOURBON
COUNTY, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00107-GFVT-MAS (E.D. Ky.), the
Hon. Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove entered an order as follows:
1. The Recommended Disposition as to the Plaintiff's motion to
certify a Damaged Class is adopted as and for the Opinion of
the
Court; and
2. The Plaintiff's motion to certify a damaged class is denied.
The Plaintiff seeks both compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at
7. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion to Certify a Damaged
Class, where he seeks certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
After reviewing the record, Judge Stinnett concluded that denial of
this motion is warranted.
Judge Stinnett ultimately found that Shannon failed to meet the
requirements of class certification because his "current request,
as the Sixth Circuit warned against, merely recites the elements of
Rule 23" without providing an adequate basis for each
prerequisite.
Bourbon County is nestled in the heart of Kentucky's famous
Bluegrass region.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7OFvBA at no extra
charge.[CC]
BUCKLEY CABLE: Laney Wins Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC LANEY, for himself
and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. BUCKLEY CABLE
CONSTRUCTION CO., Case No. 2:24-cv-04188-JFM (E.D. Pa.), the Court
entered an order granting class certification pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to allow his coworkers -- other
nonexempt Buckley workers subject to the same alleged illegal pay
practices—to recover damages due to Buckley's systemic violations
of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA).
Buckley's evidence easily satisfies the requirements of Rule 23,
and the Court should certify this class action and order notice to
be sent to the putative class members.
Mr. Laney has brought this action against Buckley for violations of
the FLSA, and due to its non-compliance with the PMWA in failing to
pay its non-exempt employees proper overtime premiums.
Specifically, Mr. Laney and other non-exempt workers were paid
piece-rate compensation for some or all of their work, but were not
paid overtime premiums on the piece-rate compensation they
received.
Buckley is a telecommunication company that offers aerial
construction and general maintenance services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MzjTLV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
Kimberly DeArcangelis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN,P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 327-5269
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: AMurthy@forthepeople.com
KimD@forthepeople.com
CACTUS HOME: Class Cert Bid Filing in MacDonald Due August 6, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN MACDONALD, v.
CACTUS HOME OFFER LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01552-JCG (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves entered a case management order:
1. The parties shall submit a Discovery Confidentiality Order
for
the Court's approval no later than Jan. 24, 2025.
2. The deadline for joining parties, amending pleadings, and
filing
supplemental pleadings is Jan. 24, 2025.
3. The deadline for filing a motion for class certification is
Aug.
6, 2025.
4. The parties shall provide full and complete Class Expert
Disclosures and Reports, as required by Rule
26(a)(2)(A)–(C) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than June 11,
2025.
5. Class Rebuttal Expert Disclosures and Reports, if any, shall
be
made no later than July 9, 2025.
6. The deadline for the completion of fact discovery, including
discovery by subpoena, shall be July 30, 2025.
7. All Parties and their counsel shall meet in person and engage
in
good faith settlement talks no later than Oct. 25, 2024.
8. Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than 180 days
from
the Class Certification Decision.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F4IoQf at no extra
charge.[CC]
CARLA CLOVER: Court Dismisses Howard Suit
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA HOWARD, v. CARLA
CLOVER, Case No. 2:20-cv-01768-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge
Pamela Pepper entered an order:
-- Granting the Defendant's amended motion for summary judgment.
-- Granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages.
-- Dismissing the case.
Plaintiff Joshua Howard, who is incarcerated at Fox Lake
Correctional Institution and is representing himself, filed this
case alleging that defendant Carla Clover and three former
defendants retaliated against him for filing Case No. 15-cv-557.
On Sept. 15, 2023, the defendant filed an amended motion for
summary judgment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B4JEdC at no extra
charge.[CC]
CH ROBINSON: Court Tosses Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JMR FARMS, INC.; MELON
ACRES, INC.; CENTRAL FLORIDA FRUIT SALES, LLC, d/b/a Sanway Farms,
Inc.; KEVIN COGGINS, d/b/a MEK Farms; HOOSIER MELONS, LLC; SHORE
SWEET GROWERS, LLC; BONNE IDEE PRODUCE, LLC; BOWLES FARMING
COMPANY, INC.; WAINWRIGHT BROTHERS FARMS, LLC; GLORY PRODUCE INC.;
and SK ENTERPRISES OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. C.H. ROBINSON
WORLDWIDE, INC.; C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, INC.; and C.H. ROBINSON
COMPANY, Case No. 0:20-cv-00879-PJS-ECW (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge
Patrick J. Schiltz entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
The Court concludes that the economic impact of the freight markup
cannot be resolved on a classwide basis. Given that economic impact
is an essential element of plaintiffs' PACA and fiduciary‐duty
claims, and given the need to assess economic impact on a
transaction‐by‐transaction basis, the Court cannot say that
common questions predominate in this action.
The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against
defendants C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., C.H. Robinson Company,
Inc., and C.H. Robinson Company, alleging violations of the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act ("PACA"), and breach of
fiduciary duty.
The Plaintiffs allege that, in delivered‐sale transactions, CHR
did not just take the agreed‐upon commission, but also paid
itself an additional, undisclosed fee in the form of a markup on
the cost of freight.
In October 2021, plaintiffs moved to certify a class of similarly
situated produce farmers.
The Plaintiffs are a group of produce farmers who contract with CHR
(a logistics company) to sell their produce to grocery stores,
restaurants, wholesalers, and other buyers.
C.H. Robinson is an American transportation company that includes
third-party logistics.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0tinCG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut St UNIT 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
- and -
Francisco Guerra, IV, Esq.
Jennifer Neal, Esq.
Mark Fassold, Esq.
WATTS GUERRA LLP
4 Dominion Drive Building 3, Suite 100
San Antonio, TX 78257
- and -
Robert A. Pollom, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. POLLOM, PLLC
12703 Spectrum Dr Ste 201
San Antonio, TX 78249-3493
- and -
Craig A. Stokes, Esq.
STOKES LAW OFFICE LLP
Oakwell Ct Ste 225
San Antonio, TX 78218
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark W. Wallin, Esq.
Christina M. Janice, Esq.
Benjamin Perry, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP
827 19th Ave S Suite 930
Nashville, TN 37203
CINFED FEDERAL: Proposed Settlement Deal Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davis v. Cinfed Federal
Credit Union (CINFED FEDERAL CREDIT UNION DATA BREACH LITIGATION),
Case No. 1:23-cv-00776-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas Cole
entered an order:
-- preliminarily certifying, for settlement purposes only, the
nationwide class as defined in the settlement agreement;
-- preliminarily approving the proposed settlement agreement;
-- authorizing the distribution of notice in accordance with the
notice plan described in the settlement agreement;
-- provisionally appointing Valencia R. Davis, Angela Whitterson,
Kendall Burwick, Christopher Talbot-Jones, and Daniel Paige as
class representatives;
-- provisionally appointing Terence R. Coates of Markovits, Stock
&
DeMarco, LLC, and Philip J. Krzeski of Chestnut Cambronne PA as
class counsel for the class;
-- provisionally appointing Simpluris, Inc. as the settlement
administrator;
This putative class action lawsuit stems from a data breach at
Cinfed that compromised the personal information of some 58,000
individuals. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative
class, now seek to settle their claims with Cinfed.
Cinfed is a community chartered federal credit union that provides
banking services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LNvdeF at no extra
charge.[CC]
CITIZENS DISABILITY: Shutler TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SHUTLER, v.
CITIZENS DISABILITY LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-14337-KMM (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Michael Moore entered an order:
-- granting Plaintiff's Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of
Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel;
-- certifying the following class under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA):
"All people in the United States (1) who answered one or more
prerecorded calls from Citizens, (2) made from the Pipes.ai
calling platform, (3) between 11/8/2019 to 10/25/2023, (4) and
at
the time of the call Citizens' only lead source for the person
called was GrantsAssistanceForYou.com";
-- appointing LawHQ, P.C. as class counsel;
-- directing the Class counsel to submit to the Court, on or
before
Sept. 19, 2024, a proposed schedule for providing the class
members with requisite notice, as outlined in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(c)(2);
-- denying the Defendant's Affirmative Motion to Deny Class
Certification; and
-- denying the Defendant's motion to strike the Pipes.ai
Declaration.
The Court finds that the proposed class is not failsafe because the
scope and size of the class can be resolved without a final
determination on the merits.
The Plaintiff filed the instant suit against Defendant alleging a
violation of the TCPA.
Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that, despite being registered
on the national Do Not Call Registry ("DNCR") since February 2023,
the Defendant initiated unsolicited calls using a prerecorded or
artificial voice at least six times to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone.
Citizens Disability is a disability advocacy group that helps
consumers apply for and set up Social Security Disability Insurance
benefits.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pVpxpa at no extra
charge.[CC]
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 6, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA BALDINO-MILLER, on
behalf of herself and all similarly aggrieved employees, v.
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-01613-KES-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara McAuliffe
entered a preliminary scheduling order:
Mid-Discovery Status Conference: Feb. 4, 2025
Class Certification Written Discovery Cutoff: April 18, 2025
Class Certification Motion Filing Deadline: June 6, 2025
Class Certification Opposition Deadline: Oct. 3, 2025
Class Certification Reply Deadline: Oct. 3, 2025
Class Certification Motion Hearing: Oct. 23, 2025
Courtyard Management operates as a chain of hotels.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XOrzXZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
DANIEL MARKUS: Lustig Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN LUSTIG, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. DANIEL MARKUS, INC.
(D/B/A PERFECT PAWN), DANIEL RISIS, MARGARITA RISIS and OLEG
NEIZVESTNY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00379-WJM-SDA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff
will move Court to enter an order certifying a collective action
for trial in this matter and (2) for such other and further relief
as the Court deems just and proper.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yZ0ms9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
Chester R. Ostrowski, Esq.
McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 448-1100
E-mail: bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
costrowski@mclaughlinstern.com
DOORDASH INC: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Campaign Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DOORDASH, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06449 (N.D. Cal.,
Sept. 13, 2024), is brought involving a campaign by DoorDash to
make calls using artificial and pre-recorded voices in plain
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter
referred to as the "TCPA").
In February of 2023, Plaintiff began receiving calls voiced using
an artificial voice from DoorDash seeking her to sign up for
DoorDash's services as a restaurant owner and to set up a DoorDash
tablet to begin taking orders. These calls occurred practically
every day, sometimes multiple times a day, and some as early as
7:00 AM in the Plaintiff's local time zone. The Plaintiff does not
own or operate a restaurant. As a result, Plaintiff contacted
DoorDash in February of 2023 and demanded that the calls stop.
In response, DoorDash initially told the Plaintiff to send them
screenshots of the messages and place an order to get the calls to
stop, at which point DoorDash stated that they would close the
account to get the calls to stop. When that did not work, DoorDash
told the Plaintiff to re-open a DoorDash account in order to get
the calls to stop and then attempted to close the account again,
but the calls did not stop. But the calls have continued. In fact,
the Plaintiff reached out the DoorDash support and the Federal
Communications Commission in June of 2024 to get the calls to stop
again, but they did not st, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received calls voiced using an artificial voice from
DoorDash.
DoorDash is a Delaware corporation and has a principal place of
business in San Francisco.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
DOWNTOWN FLWR: Igartua Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Igartua, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DOWNTOWN FLWR LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06947 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 13, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website,
www.downtownflwr.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 Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation
of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer.
CANNABIS REALM OF NEW YORK, LLC is a New Jersey Limited Liability
company that solicits business in New York, owns and maintains the
Website, www.downtownflwr.com.[BN]
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
Phone: (212) 227-5700
Fax: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
DR. SQUATCH LLC: Bruno Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Squatch, LLC. The
case is styled as Perry Bruno, Victor Guzman, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Dr. Squatch, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-07798-JLS-JC (C.D. Cal., Sept.
12, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Dr. Squatch -- https://www.drsquatch.com/ -- provides organic and
natural handmade soap to men who want to feel like a man, and smell
like a champion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
21031 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364-6522
Phone: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: abacon@toddflaw.com
tfriedman@toddflaw.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Fax: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Amit Rana, Esq.
Jonathan Alexis Mireles, Esq.
Mona Mujaddidi, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
101 California Street Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 653-3750
Fax: (415) 653-3755
Email: arana@venable.com
jamireles@venable.com
- and -
Ashley Song, Esq.
KANDL GATES LLP
1 Park Plaza, 12th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 623-3573
Fax: (949) 253-0902
Email: ashley.song@klgates.com
- and -
Manny Joseph Caixeiro, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 229-9656
Fax: (310) 229-9901
Email: mjcaixeiro@venable.com
DROP TECHNOLOGIES: Boukhny Sues Over Deceptive Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Svetlana Boukhny, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Drop Technologies Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-07848 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 13, 2024), is
brought pursuant to Fraud, Negligence and Violation of Unfair
Competition Law for the economic harm they have suffered, as well
as injunctive relief to prevent Drop from continuing to deceive and
harm other consumers in the same manner and deceptive practices.
The Plaintiff began using the Drop app, a mobile application
designed to reward users with points for shopping at participating
retailers. Users link their credit cards to the app, and Drop
tracks purchases made with these cards, awarding points based on
spending and available promotions.
The Plaintiff was attracted to Drop due to its advertised promise
of earning points on everyday purchases that could be redeemed for
gift cards to popular retailers. She followed all of Drop's
instructions to ensure her accounts were linked properly and began
accumulating points. Despite regularly using the app and
accumulating over $1,000 worth of points, Plaintiff encountered
substantial difficulties when trying to redeem them for gift cards.
Gift cards were consistently "sold out" within seconds of becoming
available, despite Plaintiff's attempts to redeem points promptly.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have provided valuable consumer
data to Drop by linking their credit cards, which Drop likely
monetized through partnerships with retailers. Drop was unjustly
enriched by profiting from these transactions while failing to
deliver the promised rewards.
Drop's deceptive practices have affected thousands of users across
the United States, as evidenced by over 200 complaints filed with
the Better Business Bureau (BBB) and numerous online reviews
detailing similar experiences with unredeemable points. The
systemic issues with Drop's redemption process and the misleading
nature of its advertising demonstrate a pattern of fraudulent
conduct, impacting a large number of consumers, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff began using the Drop application approximately seven
years ago.
Drop Technologies Inc. is a corporation formed in Delaware and
operates the Drop app, a mobile platform designed to reward users
with points for making purchases through partners over 500 brands,
including Amazon, Starbucks and Uber.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Ingber Esq.
INGBER LAW GROUP
3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (310) 270-0089
Email: ji@jasoningber.com
EDWARD JONES: Bid for Leave to File Surreply Granted in Dixon Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE DIXON and JAIME
GAONA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., and THE EDWARD JONES FINANCIAL
COMPANIES, L.L.L.P., Case No. 4:22-cv-00284-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Sarah Pitlyk entered an order:
-- granting Plaintiffs' motion to compel.
-- granting Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply.
Throughout the motion, the Plaintiffs stress that their claims are
"nationwide," but they would "test their class theories on a
geographic sample before expanding discovery nationwide."
There is no need to kick that can down the road.
The Plaintiffs have shown that the data is relevant to class
certification, and Defendants have stated that production of the
data would not be burdensome
The Plaintiffs Katie Dixon and Jimmy Gaona allege that the
Defendants' "Goodknight" program discriminates against women and
other minorities in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws.
They seek to bring claims on behalf of a class of other minorities
who worked as financial advisors (FAs) for Defendants.
Edward D. Jones is a financial services firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GlfBFT at no extra
charge.[CC]
ELECTROLUX HOME: Elward Files 7th Circuit Appeal
-------------------------------------------------
TERESA ELWARD, et al. have filed an appeal in their lawsuit
entitled Teresa Elward, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-09882, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of all the consumers who owned and used
residential dishwashers designed and manufactured by the Defendant,
with defects in that the electrical system overheats and catches
fire, burning holes through the dishwasher, causing flooding, or
engulfing the entire dishwasher and surrounding area in flames.
The appellate case is captioned Teresa Elward, et al. v. Electrolux
Home Products, Inc., Case No. 24-2564, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on September 5, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants' Docketing Statement was due on September 11,
2024; and
-- Appellants' Brief is due on October 15, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants TERESA ELWARD, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Gregory Frederic Coleman, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay Street
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Defendant-Appellee ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC. is represented
by:
Galen Bellamy, Esq.
WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
370 17th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 244-1800
- and –
James W. Ozog, Esq.
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
222 W. Adams Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 542-8400
ESTEE LAUDER INC: Battle Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Estee Lauder, Inc.
The case is styled as Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Estee Lauder, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-08419 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 13, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. -- https://www.elcompanies.com/en
-- is one of the world's leading manufacturers and marketers of
quality skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
FLAGSTAR STAFFING: Bowser Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luanne Bowser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FLAGSTAR STAFFING, INC. DBA FLAGSTAR NURSING, Case No.
2:24-cv-01306 (W.D. Pa., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Portal-to-Portal Act, (collectively,
the "FLSA") seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek.
The Defendant's practice of failing to relieve hourly-paid direct
patient care workers of their duties during meal periods, while
simultaneously using timekeeping software to deduct meal periods
from the total time paid per shift (on the pretext of accounting
for meal periods which hourly-paid direct patient care workers were
not free to take without interruption), had the effect of depriving
hourly-paid direct patient care workers of overtime compensation
due to them under the FLSA in each workweek in which they worked
more than 40 hours, and straight-time compensation at their
respective contractual hourly rate(s) in weeks in which they worked
fewer than 40 hours in a week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a certified nursing
assistant.
The Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry Bendesky, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C.
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 496-8282
Fax: (215) 496-0999
Email: lbendesky@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Phone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Jennings Suit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA MAE JENNINGS, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02638-CEF (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Charles Fleming entered an order denying Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration.
The Defendant received the arbitration agreement in March 2022 and
waited nearly two years (20 months) to seek to compel arbitration.
No explanation has been given for the protracted delay in doing so.
The Court finds that Defendant waived any right it may have had to
compel arbitration.
On March 14, 2022, Defendant filed its opposition to class
certification, motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of the
Plaintiff's expert Dr. Werner J.A. Dahm, and motion to exclude the
opinions and testimony of Plaintiff's expert Edward M. Stockton.
On Dec. 6, 2022, Defendant filed a notice of supplemental
authority.
On May 19, 2023 and June 27, 2023, the Defendant filed responses to
additional notices of supplemental authority filed by Plaintiff.
The Court issued its ruling on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification on Sept. 11, 2023.
The Defendant did not move to compel arbitration until Nov. 30,
2023. The Defendant filed that motion simultaneously with three
other motions, including a motion for summary judgment.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i6LQxQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
GKN DRIVELINE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply in Carson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CARSON AND RANDALL
STARK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
1:23–CV–583–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=SIQK7G 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
GKN DRIVELINE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Ayers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES AYERS, DOYLE
CAWTHON, JR., DEUAL STARR, AND DARRON GRAY, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA,
INC., Case No. 1:23–CV–581–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=TnOywg 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
GNL CORP: Joint Discovery Plan in Lester Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE LESTER., v. GNL,
CORP., Case No. 2:24-cv-01154-CDS-NJK (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge
Nancy Koppe entered an order denying the joint discovery plan.
First, the discovery plan miscalculates when the discovery period
starts running.
Second, the discovery plan seeks special scheduling without
sufficient explanation. Local Rule 26-1(b)(1).
Third, the parties fail to state the calendar date on which
dispositive motions are due.
They also fail to provide a deadline for the joint pretrial order,
the Court says.
GNL operates public hotels and motels.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3WfFEt at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOODPRESS PUBLISHING: Reardon Seeks to Conduct Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL REARDON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. GOODPRESS PUBLISHING
L.C. d/b/a SIMPLY THE BEST DIGITAL MARKETING, Case No.
1:24-cv-02322-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting his motion for leave to conduct class
certification and damages related discovery against the Defendant
for its violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. section 227 ("TCPA").
Simply is a full-service digital marketing company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fd1nX3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Love, Esq.
LOVE CONSUMER LAW
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
Alpharetta, GA 30009
Telephone: (404) 855-3600
E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com
- and -
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, #1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 587-6240
Facsimile: (215) 689-0875
E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs' Opening Expert Reports Amended to Oct. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Google Digital Advertising
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-03010-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel entered an order granting MDL
Plaintiffs' unopposed request to amend the scheduling order and
amended case management plan and scheduling order:
Event Current Proposed
Due Date Due Date
Plaintiffs' Opening Expert Sept. 13, 2024 Oct. 4,
2024
Reports
Defendants' Responsive Expert Oct. 21, 2024 Dec. 13,
2024
Reports
Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Nov. 18, 2024 Jan. 17,
2025
Reports
Expert Discovery Cutoff Dec. 30, 2024 Feb. 28,
2025
Pre-Motion Letter for Summary Jan. 10, 2025 Mar. 14,
2025
Judgment Motions and Class
Certification Motions
Google is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q3USAP at no extra
charge.[CC]
GRAND AMERICA: Jan. 20, 2025 Class Cert Bid Deadline Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANN DESCANZO, VERONICA
BONDOC, GLEN SEGUNDINO, and MARIANNE PONIO, and those similarly
situated, v. GRAND AMERICA HOTELS & RESORTS, INC. and SINCLAIR
SERVICES COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-00443-HCN-DBP (D. Utah), the
Parties ask the Court to amend its current scheduling order and
enter the proposed deadlines below for briefing class
certification:
Event Proposed Deadline
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification Jan. 20, 2025
Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion Feb. 17, 2025
for class certification
Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for March 3, 2025
class certification
The Parties agree that, within 14 days of the Court ruling on the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, they will submit a
proposed schedule for the remainder of the case.
The Plaintiffs filed this case on June 25, 2019.
On Feb. 15, 2024, the Parties filed a joint stipulation requesting
that the Court refer this matter to Magistrate Judge Bennett to
conduct a settlement conference.
On Feb. 20, 2024, the Court issued an order referring this matter
to Judge Bennett for a settlement conference.
Grand America offers dining, concierge, transportation, and meeting
services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gcx156 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP
PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
eadams@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
P. Alex McBean, Esq.
ALEX McBEAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
505 South Main Street
Bountiful, UT 84010
Telephone (358) 319-1137
E-mail: alex@alexmcbeanlaw.com
- and -
Alexander Hood, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
1410 High Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew R. Lewis, Esq.
R. Jeremy Adamson, Esq.
Shelby Jaye Hughes, Esq.
KUNZLER BEAN & ADAMSON, PC
50 W. Broadway, 10th Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Telephone: (801) 994-4646
E-mail: mlewis@kba.law
jadamson@kba.law
shughes@kba.law
mhansen@kba.law
- and -
Brett L. Tolman, Esq.
THE TOLMAN GROUP
13827 Sprague Lane, Suite 220
Draper, UT 84020
Telephone: (801) 639-9840
E-mail: brett@tolmangroup.com
HANMI FINANCIAL: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ortiz, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. HANMI FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No.
1:24-cv-00861 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 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://hanmi.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.
HANMI FINANCIAL CORPORATION, operates the Hanmi online bank, as
well as the Hanmi 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
HARMONY LEADS INC: Ragsdale Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harmony Leads, Inc.
The case is styled as Lisa Ragsdale, Carl Yockman, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Harmony Leads,
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02510-CNS (D. Colo., Sept. 12, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Harmony Leads -- https://harmonyleads.com/ -- owns, manages and
sifts through millions of records to be able to provide data that
fits your needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex Kruzyk, Esq.
PARDELL KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO PLLC
7500 Rialto Boulevard, Suite 1-250
Austin, TX 78735
Phone: (737) 310-3210
Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com
HEARST TELEVISION: Saunders Can File Certain Documents Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Saunders, et al., v.
Hearst Television, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998 (D. Mass., Filed
May 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order
granting motion to seal certain documents submitted in support of
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
-- Counsel will receive an email within 24 hours of this order
with
instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave
has
been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S.
District Court of Massachusetts.
The nature of suit states other statutes -- other statutory
actions.
Hearst is a broadcasting company in the United States owned by
Hearst Communications, made up of a group of television and radio
stations, and Hearst Media Production Group, a distributor of
programming in broadcast syndication.[CC]
HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Court Extends Time to File Stipulation
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Giguere v. Homeworks
Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-30015 (D. Mass., Filed Feb.
5, 2021), the Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order
granting motion for extension of time to file stipulation relating
to class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
HomeWorks specializes in energy assessment and consulting.[CC]
INTERNATIONAL STAR: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 20, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Melissa Damian entered
an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for a four-month extension
of the deadline to complete class discovery and file a motion for
class certification.
The Plaintiff shall have until Jan. 20, 2025, to complete all class
discovery and file her motion for class certification.
No further extensions of time will be permitted absent compelling
circumstances.
International Star Registry is an organization which sells the
right to unofficially name stars.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UjEQeG at no extra
charge.[CC]
INTUIT INC: Class Cert Bid in Rodriguez Extended to Jan. 16, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH RODRIGUEZ,
individually and as a representative of a class of participants and
beneficiaries on behalf of the Intuit Inc. 401(k) Plan, v. INTUIT
INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-05053-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P.
Casey Pitts entered a stipulated scheduling order as follows:
Event Original
Stipulated
Date Date
Deadline to Answer the Complaint Sept. 9, 2024 No change
Deadline for Defendant to produce N/A Nov. 22,
2024
for deposition Rule 30(b)(6)
witness and individual witness
named in its Initial Disclosures
Motion for Class Certification Oct. 18, 2024 Jan. 16,
2025
Opposition to Class Certification Nov. 15, 2024 Feb. 13,
2025
Reply in Support of Class Dec. 6, 2024 March 6,
2025
Certification
Fact Discovery Cutoff Jan. 17, 2025 April 17,
2025
Designation of Opening Experts Jan. 23, 2025 April 23,
2025
with Reports
Expert Discovery Cutoff Feb. 27, 2025 May 28,
2025
Deadline to file Dispositive April 17, 2025 July 16,
2025
Motion(s)
Hearing on Dispositive Motion(s) May 29, 2025 Aug. 27,
2025
Completion of ADR May 30, 2025 Aug. 28,
2025
Pretrial Conference Oct. 28, 2025 Jan. 27,
2026
Trial Nov. 17, 2025 Feb. 17,
2026
Intuit Inc is an American multinational business software company
that specializes in financial software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HBQETb at no extra
charge.[CC]
ITG COMMUNICATIONS: Initial Discovery in Stenberg Suit Due Dec. 20
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADY STENBERG, v. ITG
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01703-SDM-NHA (M.D. Fla.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order:
(a) bifurcating discovery to allow an initial discovery period
focused on whether ITG was the Plaintiff's employer, with a
deadline of Dec. 20, 2024;
(b) establishing an initial dispositive motion deadline on Jan.
20,
2025 focused on whether ITG was the Plaintiff's employer;
and
(c) staying the remaining portions of the case pending an
adjudication of those issues.
In sum, ITG's request provides an equitable approach to this case.
The Court should not allow ITG to be submitted to wholesale,
merits-based discovery and litigation before resolution of the
threshold, dispositive, issue of whether ITG employed Plaintiff
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Bifurcating proceedings to resolve that issue at an early stage
represents an efficient use of the parties’ time and judicial
resources.
And Plaintiff will not be harmed by limiting discovery to that
threshold issue since it is distinguishable from the merits of the
Plaintiff's case.
On Feb. 16, 2022, ITG contracted with Dono (the "Subcontractor
Agreement") with Dono to provide cable installation services on
ITG's behalf.
On May 4, 2023, the Plaintiff entered into an independent
contractor agreement with Dono.
On June 6, 2024, the Plaintiff sued ITG (who is not his employer)
in Florida state court. The Complaint alleges the Plaintiff worked
for ITG performing cable installation, and that ITG paid him per
job, as opposed to hourly, so ITG did not pay him appropriate
overtime wages under the FLSA.
ITG is a national provider of fulfillment, construction and project
management services to the cable and telecommunications
industries.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tgKcwU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sherril M. Colombo, Esq.
Ryan P. Forrest, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 SE 2nd Ave., Ste. 2700
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 400-7500
Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
E-mail: scolombo@littler.com
rforrest@littler.com
J&C AMBULANCE: Parties Seek More Time to File Reply Briefs
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARA FIRST, et al., v. J&C
AMBULANCE SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03296-MHW-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting
an extension of time to file their reply briefs on the following
pending motions:
1. Defendant J&C's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
3. Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
The current deadline is Sept. 18, 2024. The Parties request an
additional 14 days and a new deadline of Oct. 2, 2024.
For the following reasons, this Court should grant the Parties'
request.
First, counsel's busy professional schedules warrant an extension
of time. Both Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendant J&UC's counsel have
several matters on other cases that are ongoing. This includes, for
instance, contested dispositive and non-dispositive motions,
written discovery, depositions, and other litigation tasks. A brief
extension of time to accommodate these professional schedules is
appropriate. Second, the motions at issue are more complex,
involved, and critically important than the ordinary motion. The
dispositive motions are obviously some of the most important in the
case, since they seek to dispose of claims without a trial.
Additionally, a motion for class certification is critically
important because it raises the stakes in the litigation for both
sides and, in many ways, it is akin to a dispositive motion. As a
result, a brief extension of time for the Parties to fully research
and draft their respective reply briefs is warranted.
Third, this requested extension is also relatively short and, for
that reason, will not result in any prejudice to an opposing party.
In fact, because this motion is joint, the Parties agree there will
be no prejudice.
This matter is an employment discrimination and retaliation case.
There is also a class action component alleging systemic violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), as
amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
("COBRA").
The Defendant J&C Ambulance, the only remaining defendant who has
appeared, denies any wrongdoing and opposes class certification.
On July 31, 2024, Defendant J&C filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.
J&C provides 24 hour non emergency basic and advanced life support
transports.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O4l5Ex at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason E. Starling, Esq.
WILLIS SPANGLER STARLING
4635 Trueman Boulevard, Suite 100
Hilliard, OH 43026
Telephone: (614) 586-7915
Facsimile: (614) 586-7901
E-mail: jstarling@willisattorneys.com
- and -
John C. Camillus, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC
Columbus, OH 43214
Telephone: (614) 558-7254
Facsimile: (614) 559-6731
E-mail: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James H. Gordon, Esq.
Melissa R. Lock, Esq.
LOCK GORDON LAW GROUP, LLC
100 East Campus View Blvd., Suite 250
Columbus, OH 43235
Telephone: (610) 937-6996
E-mail: jgordon@lockgordon.com
mlock@lockgordon.com
J-B WELD: Cross Bids for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.
("ITW"), v. J-B WELD COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01434-JAM (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the parties' cross-motions for
summary judgment.
The Court dismisses ITW's "Made in USA" claim against J-B Weld and
dismisses J-B Weld's OEM and epoxy counterclaims against ITW.
Because J-B Weld has not shown actual or presumed damages for the
reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that J-B Weld may not
pursue its OEM or epoxy counterclaims solely in hopes of garnering
an award of nominal damages. If the court were to conclude to the
contrary, then it would effectively allow J-B Weld to maintain its
claims despite the lack of any injury-in-fact that is required for
standing under Article III of the Constitution.
An award of nominal damages presupposes some form of injury, even
if that injury cannot be quantified in the form of compensatory or
statutory damages. Here, there is no genuine fact issue to show
that J-B Weld was injured or damaged at all by ITW's OEM and epoxy
advertising, so J-B Weld is not entitled to litigate these claims
in order to seek nominal damages.
In short, the Court will grant ITW's motion for summary judgment on
damages as to both the OEM and epoxy counterclaims. J-B Weld
concedes it cannot prove actual damages, and in the absence of any
actual or presumed injury to J-B Weld, it is not entitled to
disgorgement or nominal damage.
ITW and J-B Weld are competing sellers of adhesives and silicone
sealants marketed for automotive and household use.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3tgwnf at no extra
charge.[CC]
KABANCE PHOTO: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Mayhew Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SPENCER MAYHEW, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KABANCE PHOTO SERVICES, INC. Case No. 3:23-cv-02964-DWD (S.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge David Dugan entered a scheduling and
discovery order as follows:
-- Plaintiff(s) depositions shall be taken by March 28, 2025.
-- Defendant(s) depositions shall be taken by March 28, 2025.
-- Third Party actions must be commenced by November 8, 2024
(which
date shall be no late than 90 days following the scheduling
conference).
-- Expert witnesses for Class Certification, if any, shall be
disclosed, along with a written report prepared and signed by
the
witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2),
as
follows:
-- Plaintiff(s) expert(s): April 16, 2025.
-- Defendant(s) expert(s): May 21, 2025.
-- Depositions of Class Certification expert witnesses must be
taken
by:
-- Plaintiff(s) expert(s): April 30, 2025.
-- Defendant(s) expert(s): June 11, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=27OR1l at no extra
charge.[CC]
KELLER WILLIAMS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES HAVASSY,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., PETER HEWITT and KELLY HOUSTON Case
No. 2:21-cv-04608-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Savage
entered an order granting the joint motion to extend discovery end
date and deadline for plaintiff to file motion for class
certification:
1. All fact and expert discovery relating to class certification
shall be completed by Nov. 26, 2024.
2. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
certification
no later than Dec. 18, 2024.
3. The Defendants' responses to the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall be filed no later than Jan. 15, 2025.
4. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply to the defendant's
response no later than Jan. 29, 2025.
5. Oral argument on the plaintiff's motion for class
certification
is postponed until further order of the Court.
Keller Williams is an American technology and international real
estate franchise.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OcUqqN at no extra
charge.[CC]
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Endorses Class Status in Hobbs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tavares Hobbs, Ricardo
Bell and Robert Shaw, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01421-JLR-SD (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Stewart Aaron recommended that the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification be granted with respect to Classes A, B and C and
Subclasses 1 through 3 and that the Court further certify HVL
Subclasses subject to a further submission by the parties regarding
numerosity with respect to the HVL Subclasses for Classes B and C.
The Court further recommended that the Court appoint Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP as Class Counsel, pursuant to Rule
23(g).
The Court finds that the proposed classes and both sets of
subclasses are defined by objective criteria such that the
ascertainably requirement has been satisfied.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel are qualified,
experienced and able to conduct this litigation. Their conduct of
this litigation to date reveals their knowledge of the law and the
resources they have committed to representing the class.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the
Defendants, alleging that the Defendants violated the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") by failing to properly compensate the Plaintiffs
for off-the-clock work, pay minimum wage, pay overtime compensation
for off-the-clock work, provide spread-of-hours pay and provide
accurate itemized wage statements.
The Plaintiff Hobbs was employed by Swift from May 2019 to March
2020, and worked primarily on dedicated accounts for customers
Kraft and Sears.
Knight-Swift is a trucking company.
A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Sept. 6,
2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e0cPwU at no extra charge.[CC]
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Dickson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leaffilter North,
LLC. The case is styled as Carole Dickson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Leaffilter North, LLC,
Case No. 5:24-cv-01578 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 13, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
LeafFilter -- https://www.leaffilter.com/ -- is the largest gutter
protection company in the nation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth P. Dobson, Esq.
KENNETH DOBSON
324 S. Abernathy St.
Portland, OR 97239
Phone: (971) 717-6582
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO LAW
401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Fax: (954) 400-4710
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Melanie E. Rose, Esq.
Duncan J. Campbell, Esq.
SMITH FREED EBERHARD
111 SW Columbia St., Suite 800
Portland, OR 97201
Phone: (503) 227-2424
- and -
Mark S. Eisen, Esq.
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF
71 South Wacker, Ste. 1600
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 212-4956
Fax: (312) 767-9192
Email: meisen@beneschlaw.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 6, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE WATTS, ANTHONY
WATTS, and ADAM PIZZITOLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-12845-PBS
(D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Patti Saris entered an order that the
scheduling order deadlines are extended by approximately twelve
weeks as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
Deadline for Motion for Class Dec. 12, 2024 March 6, 2025
Certification, and Expert
Disclosure Deadline for
Plaintiffs' expert regarding
class certification
Opposition to Motion for Feb. 12, 2025 May 7, 2025
Class Certification, and
Expert Disclosure Deadline
for Defendants' experts
regarding class certification
Plaintiffs' Reply and March 12, 2025 June 4, 2025
disclosure of Plaintiffs'
rebuttal experts regarding
class certification
All Fact Discovery Deadline Dec. 8, 2025 March 2, 2026
Liberty Mutual is an American diversified global insurer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wLMR8n at no extra
charge.[CC]
LOUDON OPCO: Fritts Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Fritts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Loudon Opco LLC dba River Grove Health and
Rehabilitation, Case No. 1:24-cv-06951 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2024),
is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Portal-to-Portal Act (collectively, the "FLSA") seeking damages for
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular
rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day
workweek.
The Defendant's practice of failing to relieve hourly-paid direct
patient care workers of their duties during meal periods, while
simultaneously using timekeeping software to deduct meal periods
from the total time paid per shift (on the pretext of accounting
for meal periods which hourly-paid direct patient care workers were
not free to take without interruption), had the effect of depriving
hourly-paid direct patient care workers of overtime compensation
due to them under the FLSA in each workweek in which they worked
more than 40 hours, and straight-time compensation at their
respective contractual hourly rate(s) in weeks in which they worked
fewer than 40 hours in a week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on September 10, 2007 and
stopped working for Defendant on or about November 11, 2023.
The Defendant is a limited liability company organized under the
laws of the State of Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
THE KLEIN AND CARDALI LAW GROUP PLLC
39 Broadway, 35th Floor,
New York, NY 10006
Phone: 212-344-9022
Fax: 212-344-0301
- and -
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Phone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
LTF CLUB: Seeks to Strike Declarations of Putative Class Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL TURNER,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, v. LTF
CLUB MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, an unknown business entity; LIFE TIME
FITNESS, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00046-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the
Defendants will move the Court , on Oct. 15, 2024 for an Order
striking five declarations of putative class members filed by
Plaintiff on Aug. 13, 2024, in support of his motion for class
certification.
This Motion is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
26(a)(1)(A) and 37(c)(1) on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to
disclose the witnesses in his Initial Disclosures or at any other
time prior to the close of discovery, and this failure was not
substantially justified or harmless; therefore, Plaintiff should
not be allowed to use these witnesses to supply evidence for his
Motion for Class Certification.
This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the
attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of
Gregory Knopp, the papers on file in this case, any oral argument
that may be heard by the Court, and any other matters that the
Court deems appropriate.
Life Time certifies that it exhausted the Court's pre-filing meet
and confer requirement by setting forth the basis for the motion to
Turner's counsel by email on Sept. 5, 2024, and discussing it
thereafter by telephone on Sept. 10, 2024. However, the parties
were unable to reach a resolution.
On May 5, 2023, the parties exchanged initial disclosures pursuant
to Rule 26(a).
On Jan. 19, 2024, Life Time supplemented its disclosures to
identify 28 non-managerial witnesses by name, club, address, and
phone number, and six managerial witnesses (who may be contacted
through Life Time's counsel) by name and club.
On Aug. 13, 2024, Turner filed his Motion for Class Certification,
attaching the declarations of five putative class members whom he
failed to disclose, either in his Rule 26 disclosures or in
response to Life Time's interrogatories.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uPxl4Y at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq.
Laura L. Vaughn, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010
Telephone: (310) 557-2900
Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
E-mail: gknopp@proskauer.com
jslowik@proskauer.com
lvaughn@proskauer.com
M&M TRANSPORT: Burton Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burton, individually, and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. M&M TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-12345 (D. Mass., Sept. 12, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to safeguard and secure the personally
identifiable information ("PII") of approximately thousands of
individuals, including Plaintiff.
The data reportedly exposed in the breach includes some of the most
sensitive types of data that cybercriminals seek in order to commit
fraud and identity theft. As a result of Defendant's negligence, on
or prior to June 30, 2024, cybercriminals were able to gain access
to Defendant's computer records and access this sensitive and
valuable PII (the "Data Breach"). According to Defendant,
information disclosed in the Data Breach includes, but is not
limited to, each affected individual's name, date of birth, Social
Security Number, driver license information, I-9 Information,
and/or passport number
The Defendant owed a non-delegable duty to Plaintiff and Class
Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security
measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against
unauthorized access and disclosure. Defendant breached that duty
by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain
reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its
employees' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure.
As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its
duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's
and Class Members' PII was accessed and disclosed. This action
seeks to remedy these failings, and the harm caused to Plaintiff
and Class Members as a result. Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of himself and all persons whose PII was exposed as a result
of the Data Breach.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of financial fraud
and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant when it acquired his
PII.
M&M Transport Services, LLC is a transportation company
incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with its principal office
located in Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 298-3281
Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
tgarber@fbfglaw.com
MARUKAI CORP: Faces Ceballos Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR CEBALLOS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARUKAI CORPORATION; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV22828 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 5, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants due to alleged unlawful labor practices in violation
of the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.
The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for state law
violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants'
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit
rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked
and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated
employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and
failure to furnish accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a stocker from
approximately 2011 to April 2024.
Marukai Corporation was founded in 1949. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of distilled spirits,
including neutral spirits and ethyl alcohol used in blended wines
and distilled liquors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Allen Feghali, Esq.
Jacquelyne P. VanEmmerik, Esq.
MOON LAW GROUP, PC
725 S. Figueroa St., 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com
afeghali@moonlawgroup.com
jvanemmerik@moonlawgroup.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 24, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lena Jamil v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-08130-FLA-AJR (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order granting the
parties' Stipulation as modified and continues pretrial and trial
dates and deadlines to the following dates:
Event New Date
Fact Discovery Cut-off Dec. 6, 2024
Expert Disclosure (Initial) Jan. 3, 2025
Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) Jan. 31, 2025
Expert Discovery Cut-off Feb. 14, 2025
Deadline to File Motion for Class Jan. 24, 2025
Certification
Deadline to file Opposition to Class Feb. 21. 2025
Certification Motion
Deadline to file Reply ISO Class Mar. 14, 2025
Certification Motion
Hearing on Class Certification Motion Apr. 4, 2025
Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference Oct. 3, 2025
Mercedes-Benz is responsible for the distribution, marketing and
customer service for all Mercedes-Benz products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E3uwY3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 21, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases, Case
No. 5:22-cv-07557-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts
entered an order granting new class certification briefing schedule
as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Oct. 14, 2024 July 21,
2025
Certification and Associated
Expert Report(s) Due
Meta's Class Certification Dec. 20, 2024 Sept. 29,
2025
Opposition and Associated Expert
Report(s) Due
Plaintiffs' Class Certification Feb. 14, 2025 Nov. 17,
2025
Reply and Reply Expert Report(s)
Due
On July 13, 2023, the Court set deadlines for the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and associated expert reports and
related briefing, and on July 2, 2024, the Court revised deadlines
for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and associated
expert
reports and related briefing as requested by the parties in their
Dec. 28, 2023, Joint Case Management Statement
Meta is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in
Menlo Park, California. The company owns and operates Facebook,
Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp, among other products and
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vziCLm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Neal Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com
- and -
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C.
867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02216
Telephone: (617) 377-7404
E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
Michael Liskow, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com
mliskow@4-justice.com
eservice@4-justice.com
- and -
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Marshal J. Hoda, Esq.
THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC
12333 Sowden Road, Suite B
Houston, TX 77080
Telephone: (832) 848-0036
E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com
- and -
Patrick Yarborough, Esq.
FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC
917 Franklin Street, Suite 220
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 331-5254
E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Darcy C. Harris, Esq.
Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq.
Abigail A. Barrera, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Telephone: (212) 351-4000
Facsimile: (212) 351-4035
E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com
dharris@gibsondunn.com
emccloskey@gibsondunn.com
abarrera@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
Caroline A. Lebel, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
kwong@cooley.com
clebel@cooley.com
META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek Jul 21, 2025 Class Cert. Bid Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases, Case
No. 5:22-cv-07557-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter the new class certification briefing schedule as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Oct. 14, 2024 July 21,
2025
Certification and Associated
Expert Report(s) Due
Meta's Class Certification Dec. 20, 2024 Sept. 29,
2025
Opposition and Associated Expert
Report(s) Due
Plaintiffs' Class Certification Feb. 14, 2025 Nov. 17,
2025
Reply and Reply Expert Report(s)
Due
On July 13, 2023, the Court set deadlines for the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and associated expert reports and
related briefing, and on July 2, 2024, the Court revised deadlines
for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and associated
expert
reports and related briefing as requested by the parties in their
Dec. 28, 2023, Joint Case Management Statement.
Meta Platforms., doing business as Meta, and formerly named
Facebook, Inc., and The Facebook, Inc., is an American
multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park,
California. The company owns and operates Facebook, Instagram,
Threads, and WhatsApp, among other products and services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LTcS4I at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Meta Platforms, Inc., are:
Neal Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com
- and -
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C.
867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02216
Telephone: (617) 377-7404
E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
Michael Liskow, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com
mliskow@4-justice.com
eservice@4-justice.com
- and -
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Marshal J. Hoda, Esq.
THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC
12333 Sowden Road, Suite B
Houston, TX 77080
Telephone: (832) 848-0036
E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com
- and -
Patrick Yarborough, Esq.
FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC
917 Franklin Street, Suite 220
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 331-5254
E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Darcy C. Harris, Esq.
Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq.
Abigail A. Barrera, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Telephone: (212) 351-4000
Facsimile: (212) 351-4035
E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com
dharris@gibsondunn.com
emccloskey@gibsondunn.com
abarrera@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
Caroline A. Lebel, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
kwong@cooley.com
clebel@cooley.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Stevens Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Amanda Stevens, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, Case No.
3:24-cv-00501 (S.D.W. Va., Sept. 12, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a third-party debt collector with headquarters in San
Diego.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Sheridan, Esq.
KLEIN & SHERIDAN
3566 Teays Valley Road
Hurricane, WV 25526
Phone: (304) 562-7111
Fax: (304) 562-7115
Email: ben@kleinsheridan.com
- and -
Denali S. Hedrick, Esq.
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301-1386
Phone: (304) 940-9809
Email: dhedrick@baileyglasser.com
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Jed Robert Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN CONSUMER LAW
P. O. Box 654
Athens, WV 24712
Phone: (304) 207-0066
Email: jed@protectwvconsumers.com
- and -
Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER
923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Phone: (215) 274-9420
Fax: (304) 342-1110
Email: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com
MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Settlement Class Gets Conditional Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY RAMIREZ CRUZ
GUERRERO and CRISTOPHER ISMAEL RAMIREZ MOREL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MONTEFIORE HEALTH
SYSTEM, INC. and CSS BUILDING SOLUTIONS INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-09194-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker
entered an order:
-- Conditionally certifying for settlement purposes only, the
following class:
-- "All individuals employed by CSS who performed cleaning duties
at
Montefiore facilities at any time from March 13, 2016 to
October
27, 2022";
-- Appointing for settlement purposes only, Pechman Law Group PLLC
as class counsel for the purposes of settlement and the
releases
and other obligations; and
-- Approving the proposed class notice.
Montefiore is a premier academic health systems.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FmRAn0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MTI TIRES: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Petty Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Petty v. MTI Tires LLC,
Case No. 4:24-cv-04136-SLD-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. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M7gJTR at no extra
charge.[CC]
NIBBI BROS. INC: Diaz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nibbi Bros., Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Danaee Diaz, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the State of California as a Private
Attorney General v. Nibbi Bros., Inc., Construction Security USA,
Nibbi Bros. Associates, Inc., Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive, Case
No. CGC24618053 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 13,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Nibbi -- https://www.nibbi.com/ -- has been constructing
technically complex, iconic structures in the San Francisco Bay
Area since 1950.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard T. Emma, Esq.
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 415-362-1111
Fax: 415-362-1112
Email: lemma@employment-lawyers.com
NICHOLAS HINES: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Kuhlman Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kuhlman, v. Hines, et al.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01065-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. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VSLDrD at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORTH MEMORIAL: Johnson Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON JOHNSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
the proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class, v. NORTH MEMORIAL HEALTH
CARE, Case No. 0:23-cv-01780-PJS-LIB (D. Minn.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting his motion for Rule 23 class
certification.
North Memorial provides primary care, urgent care, specialty care
and emergency services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w9lwEF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reena I. Desai, Esq.
Caitlin L. Opperman, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: rdesai@nka.com
copperman@nka.com
NOVO NORDISK: Fumich Sues Over Security Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
John Fumich, Laura Mischley, Raphael Hinton, Ronnie Mclean, and
Thomas Chaffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NOVO NORDISK INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NOVO
NORDISK INC., THE NOVO NORDISK INC. RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN
DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:24-cv-09158 (D.N.J., Sept. 13, 2024), is
brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA"), against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include Novo
Nordisk Inc. and the Board of Directors of Novo Nordisk Inc. and
its Period members (the "Board") during the Class and the Novo
Nordisk Inc. Retirement Committee and its members (the "Committee")
during the Class Period.
At all times during the Class Period, the Plan had at least $1.2
billion dollars in assets under management. The Plan's assets under
management for all funds as of December 31, 2018 was $1,222,746,393
and by 2023 the assets under management had risen to
$2,303,296,181. See 2018 Form 5500 of the Novo Nordisk Inc. 401(k)
Savings Plan ("2018 Form 5500"), Schedule H and 2023 Form 5500 of
the Novo Nordisk Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan ("2023 Form 5500"),
Schedule H, respectively. In 2018, plans with over $1 billion in
assets made up only 0.01 percent of all plans in the United
States.
The Plan's assets under management makes it a jumbo plan in the
defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest plans
in the United States. As a jumbo plan, the Plan had substantial
bargaining power to obtain the most cost-efficient investments.
Defendants, however, did not exercise appropriate judgment in
scrutinizing each investment option, initially and on an ongoing
basis, that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period,
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due
care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of
performance.
The Plaintiffs further allege that during the putative Class
Period, Defendants breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, failing to control the Plan's Recordkeeping and
Administrative ("RKA") costs.
The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of the ERISA. Their
actions were contrary to the actions of a reasonable fiduciary and
cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars.
Based on this conduct, Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants
for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count I), breach of
the fiduciary duty of loyalty (Count II), breach of ERISA's
Anti-Inurement Provision (Count III) and failure to monitor
fiduciaries (Count IV), says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan.
Novo Nordisk engages in the research and development, manufacture,
and distribution of pharmaceutical products in Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, North America, and
internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Maro, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Phone: (610) 890-0200
Fax: (717) 233-4103
Email: markg@capozziadler.com
jamesm@capozziadler.com
NYC DISINFECTION: Faces Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE DIAZ and DANIEL R. CAMILO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NYC DISINFECTION SERVICES,
INC. and ALICIA HALPIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06243
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for alleged unlawful labor practices and policies in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime,
failure to furnish wage statements, and failure to provide proper
wage notices.
Plaintiff Diaz worked for the Defendants from April 14, 2021
through March 31, 2022 and later from November 1, 2023 through
December 13, 2023. Plaintiff Camilo was employed from June 7, 2021
through December 15, 2023. Throughout their employment, their job
consisted of, among other things, moving, cleaning, painting, and
disinfecting.
NYC Disinfection Services, Inc. provides commercial cleaning
services throughout New York including Brooklyn.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louis M. Leon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 583-7400
E-mail: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com
PAC HOUSING: Hills Seeks More Time for Class Cert Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIN HILLS, Individually
and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated, v. PAC HOUSING
GROUP, LLC; MOF PARC-FONTAINE, LLC (F/K/A GMF-PARC FONTAINE, LLC);
MOF-PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABILITY CORP. (F/K/A GMF- PRESERVATION OF
AFFORDABILITY CORP.); MINISTRY OUTREACH FOUNDATION (F/K/A GLOBAL
MINISTRIES FOUNDATION); and RICHARD HAMLET, Case No.
2:23-cv-05740-BWA-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting Plaintiffs an extension complete written
class certification discovery until October 11, 2024.
The Plaintiffs have diligently pursued discovery from Defendants.
Despite Plaintiffs' efforts, the Defendants have repeatedly flouted
the deadlines in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These delays
have compounded, making it difficult for the Plaintiffs to prepare
for class certification.
To date, the Defendants have not provided complete responses to
Plaintiffs' interrogatories or requests for production. The
Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Compel, which is currently under
submission.
PAC Housing is a real estate company, specializing in providing
quality housing solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vcsUsn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Casey C. DeReus, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 308-5858
Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
E-mail: dereus@bespc.com
- and -
DeVonn Jarrett, Esq.
JARRETT LAW GROUP, LLC
643 Magazine St., Suite 301A
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (833) 554-6653
E-mail: djarrett@jarrettlawgroup.com
PALO ALTO: Patterson Seeks Conditional Status of Delivery Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERT PATTERSON, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. PALO ALTO, INC.,
ROB ALVARADO, LINDA ALVARADO, DOE CORPORATION 1-10, JOHN DOE 1-10,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02109-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order authorizing him to send notice of the pendency of
this action to her similarly situated co-workers.
Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the
following employees:
"All current and former delivery drivers employed at
Defendants'
Pizza Hut stores between the date three years prior to filing
of
the original complaint and the date of final judgment in this
matter."
Palo Alto operates as a restaurant holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eEJb3p at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Emily A Hubbard, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
ehubbard@billerkimble.com
www.billerkimble.com
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Court OKs $14MM Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 April 17, 2023, the parties
entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a consolidated
action for $14.0 million. On July 9, 2024, the court approved the
settlement and entered a final judgment.
On November 16, 2021, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York consolidated two putative securities
class action lawsuits against the company and certain of the
company's officers under the caption "In re Peloton Interactive,
Inc. Securities Litigation," Master File No. 21-cv-02369-CBA-PK,
and appointed Richard Neswick as lead plaintiff.
On January 21, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint in the action purportedly on behalf of a
class consisting of those individuals who purchased or otherwise
acquired our common stock between September 11, 2020 and May 5,
2021. Lead plaintiff alleged that the company and certain of the
company's officers made false or misleading statements in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
regarding the "Peloton Tread+" and the safety of the product.
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.
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
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 February 2, 2024, defendants
served a motion to dismiss an amended complaint; briefing on
defendants' motion to dismiss said amended complaint and was
completed on May 17, 2024.
On March 30, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York granted defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to
amend a putative securities class action against the company and
certain of the company's officers. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on May 6, 2023, purportedly on behalf of a class
consisting of those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's 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 in the class action was completed on August 18, 2023.
On June 9, 2023, Sam Solomon filed said action against the company
and certain of the company's officers under Case No.
1:23-cv-04279-MKB-JRC. Jia Tian and David Feigelman were appointed
as co-lead plaintiffs.
On November 6, 2023, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those individuals
who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock
between May 6, 2021 and August 22, 2023, alleging that the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements relating to the
seat post recall in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) 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: Must Oppose Arguelles Class Cert Bid by Oct. 22
------------------------------------------------------------
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 JCPENNEY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00981-BAS-DDL
(S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order setting
the following briefing and hearing schedule on Plaintiff's motion
for class certification:
Oct. 22, 2024: Deadline for JCPenney to file opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
Nov. 12, 2024: Deadline for Plaintiff to file reply in
support
of her motion for class certification;
Nov. 18, 2024: Noticed hearing on Plaintiff's motion for
class
certification
The Plaintiff timely filed her motion for class certification on
Sept. 6, 2024 selecting an Oct. 7, 2024 hearing date.
Presently Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion is due on
Sept. 23, 2024 and Plaintiff's reply to her motion is due on Sept.
30, 2024.
The parties have conferred and agree to enter into a modified
briefing schedule regarding Plaintiff's motion which should allow
the parties to fully address and brief the issues raised in
Plaintiff's motion.
The entering of a briefing schedule as set forth below will
likewise accommodate pre-existing scheduling conflicts for the
parties and their counsel.
The parties represent that this request is not sought for any
improper purpose.
Penney is an American department store chain.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1hazNn 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 -
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, 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
The Defendants are represented by:
Moe Keshavarzi, Esq.
Wynter L. Deagle, Esq.
Benjamin D. Brooks
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Telephone: (213) 620-1780
Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
E-mail: mkeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com
wdeagle@sheppardmullin.com
bbrooks@sheppardmullin.com
PINCKNEYVILLE COMMUNITY: Sued Over Illegal Disclosure of PII & PHI
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PINCKNEYVILLE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL DISTRICT D/B/A
PINCKNEYVILLE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Case No. 3:24-cv-02166 (), is
brought to address Defendant's outrageous, illegal, and widespread
practice of disclosing the confidential Personally Identifying
Information ("PII") and/or Protected Health Information ("PHI")
(collectively referred to as "Private Information") of Plaintiff
and the proposed Class Members to third parties, including Meta
Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta, Google, LLC, DoubleClick, The Trade
Desk, Frequence, and potentially others ("the Disclosure").
The Plaintiff and the Class Members visited Defendant's Online
Platforms in relation to their past, present, and future health,
healthcare and/or payment for health care. When Plaintiff and Class
Members used Defendant's Website and Online Platforms, they thought
they were communicating exclusively with their trusted healthcare
provider. Unbeknownst to them, Defendant embedded pixels from
Facebook, Google, DoubleClick, The Trade Desk, Frequence, and
possibly others, into its Website and Online Platforms,
surreptitiously forcing Plaintiff and Class Members to transmit
intimate details about their medical treatment to third parties
without their consent.
Neither Plaintiff nor any Class Member signed a written
authorization permitting Defendant to send their Private
Information to Facebook or other third parties uninvolved in their
treatment. Despite willfully and intentionally incorporating the
Meta Pixel, potentially CAPI, and other third-party trackers into
its Website and servers, Defendant has never disclosed to Plaintiff
or Class Members that it shared their Information with Facebook,
Google, The Trade Desk, and possibly others.
The Defendant further made express and implied promises to protect
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and maintain the
privacy and confidentiality of communications that patients
exchanged with Defendant. The Defendant owed common law, statutory,
regulatory, and contractual duties to keep Plaintiff's and Class
Members' communications and Private Information safe, secure, and
Confidential, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a patient of Defendant and a victim of its
unauthorized Disclosure of Private Information.
The Defendant is a community hospital system in Pinckneyville,
Perry County, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Mallory K. Schiller, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
mschiller@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC
980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (872) 263-1100
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
RELIABLE STAFFING: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 5, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY THOMPSON, v. RELIABLE
STAFFING RESOURCES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02446-MHW-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey Vascura entered a preliminary
pretrial order as follows:
-- The Sept. 12, 2024, preliminary pretrial conference is vacated.
-- The parties have agreed to make initial disclosures by Oct. 4,
2024.
-- Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings, if
any, must be filed no later than October 11, 2024.
-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification, if any, must be
filed
by March 5, 2025.
-- Primary expert reports, if any, must be produced by March 5,
2025.
-- Rebuttal expert reports, if any, must be produced by April 4,
2025.
-- All discovery shall be completed by August 8, 2025.
-- Case dispositive motions must be filed by September 26, 2025.
-- Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand by November 20, 2024.
-- Defendants shall respond by December 11, 2024.
Mr. Thompson brings a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and
all prospective male employees who were denied employment
opportunities advertised by Reliable Staffing from January 1, 2016,
to present.
The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated federal and state
anti-discrimination laws by denying him and other
similarly-situated male applicants employment opportunities because
of their sex.
Reliable Staffing is a consulting firm that provides recruitment,
payroll, background verification and onsite management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Th4ts at no extra
charge.[CC]
RUSSELECTRIC INC: Must Oppose Bowers Class Cert Bid by Oct. 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon.
Judge entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for
extension of deadlines, as follows:
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
Russelectric custom designs and builds low-voltage and
medium-voltage power control systems.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6UZOhq at no extra
charge.[CC]
RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Standing Order Entered in Ukraine Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOINT STOCK COMPANY STATE
SAVINGS BANK OF UKRAINE v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION, Case No.
1:23-cv-00764-ACR (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Ana Reyes entered a
standing order:
-- Removed Actions
The defendant removing an action to this Court must refile any
answer filed before removal and promptly ensure that all
parties
receive a copy of this Standing Order.
-- Transferred Actions
Any motion pending and unresolved in the court from which the
case
is transferred at the time of transfer must be refiled in this
Court by the party seeking relief within seven days after the
transfer order is filed in this Court's docket.
-- Communications With Chambers
Except as authorized in this Order, the parties may not contact
Chambers by telephone. If extraordinary circumstances or
emergencies so require, however, counsel may contact Chambers
jointly via telephone conference.
-- Initial Status Conference And Issuance Of Scheduling Order
After an answer is filed, for those cases covered by Federal
Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 16.3, the Court
will
set an Initial Scheduling Conference and order the parties to
meet
and confer to discuss the matters set forth in Local Civil Rule
16.3(c), and to jointly file a report addressing them.
-- Settlement
The Court expects the parties to evaluate the case for purposes
of
settlement. Toward that end, the parties may, by motion,
request
referral for mediation to a Magistrate Judge or the
Court's mediation program.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B1NTAG at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAMS WEST: Sanchez Loses Bid to Certify Class and Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carlos Sanchez, v. Sams
West, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-05122-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Stephen Wilson entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification:
-- Monetary Relief Class:
"All current and former non-exempt employees who worked one or
more "closing shifts" (defined as a shift in which Associate's
punches reflect that they clocked out for the day at or
between
10:00pm and 11:55 pm) for Defendant in California at the 21
store
locations."
-- Termination Wage Subclass:
"All members of the Monetary Relief Class who no longer work
for
the Defendant."
-- Injunctive Relief Class:
"This class mimics the Relief Monetary Class, excepts it
begins on June 23, 2017, and does not include a Termination Wage
Subclass."
The Plaintiff filed this case on June 23, 2021, alleging the
Defendant Sam's Club, Inc. failed to compensate its employees for
time spent waiting for to be released during closing.
On Sept. 27, 2021, the Plaintiff filed Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiff amended his complaint again on Jan. 14, 2022.
On March 8, 2022, the Court granted in part the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint.
Sam's West is an American chain of membership-only warehouse club
retail stores.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an "associate" in its El
Monte, California, Club location.
The Defendant is "American chain of membership-only retail
warehouse "clubs" owned and operated by Walmart."
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YewTct at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAZERAC COMPANY: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA DEL ROSARIO et
al., v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01060-AS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order:
-- denying the Defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply
in
opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and
-- denying Defendant's request for oral argument on the class
certification motion.
The Defendant argues that a sur-reply to Plaintiff's Reply Brief is
warranted for three reasons: first, because the Brief
"obfuscate[d]" a factual issue; second, because it "minimized the
importance" of certain evidence; and three, because "Plaintiffs
have no answer for their experts' disqualifying methodological
flaws."
These arguments do not suffice to justify a sur-reply, which is
appropriately granted only to allow a non-moving party to "address
arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief."
The Plaintiff's Reply Brief "merely responded to points raised in
opposition to the underlying motion," so a sur-reply is improper.
All that being said, the Defendant's motion includes its take on
the merits of the alleged new arguments, and Plaintiffs responded
on the merits as to why they believe those arguments are unsound.
The Court will consider the parties' submissions, to the extent
they are relevant, in deciding the pending motion.
The Court may schedule oral argument later if it determines that
hearing from the parties is necessary to resolve the motion. The
Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 85
Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9iEJ4Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
SECURITAS SECURITY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 13, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ANGEL ULLOA II, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-01752-DMR (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna Ryu entered an order modifying the Case
Management and Pretrial Order for Jury Trial as follows:
Matter Current Date New Date
Motion for Class Certification Sept. 12, 2024 Mar. 13,
2025
Deadline
Motion for Class Certification Nov. 7, 2024 May 8, 2025
Opposition
Motion for Class Certification Dec. 19, 2024 June 26,
2025
Reply
Hearing on Motion for Class Jan. 23, 2025 July 24,
2025
Certification
Dispositive Motion Hearing Aug. 14, 2025 March 12,
2026
Cutoff
Expert Disclosure Deadline June 17, 2025 Jan. 13,
2026
Expert Discovery Cutoff July 15, 2025 Feb. 10,
2026
Pretrial Conference Oct. 22, 2025 May 20, 2026
Trial Nov. 3, 2025 June 1,
2026
Securitas provides security services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d1EnWM at no extra
charge.[CC]
SKY CLIMBER WIND: Henderson Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Adam Henderson, individually and for others similarly situated v.
SKY CLIMBER WIND SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a SKY CLIMBER RENEWABLES, Case
No. 1:24-cv-02514-SKC (D. Colo., Sept. 12, 2024), is brought to
recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in
violation the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA), the Colorado Minimum
Wage Act (CMWA), and their implementing regulations, by failing to
ensure they receive all required meal breaks, requiring remain
"clock out" but remain on duty and perform their regular job duties
during their "off the clock" meal breaks, and by failing to
compensate them for missed meal breaks.
The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more
than 40 hours a workweek and/or more than 12 hours a workday. But
The Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly
Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours.
The Defendant does not authorize, permit, make available, or ensure
that The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees receive bona fide
meal breaks each workday that exceeds 5 hours. But, The Defendant
requires them to "clock out" for 30 minutes a day to record they
took a "meal break," regardless of whether they receive a bona fide
uninterrupted "meal break" (The Defendant's "meal deduction
policy"). And the Defendant does not authorize and permit The
Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to receive bona fide rest
breaks for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof.
The Defendant likewise violates the CWCA, CMWA, and COMPS Orders by
failing to ensure the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees
receive all required rest breaks and failing to compensate them for
missed rest breaks, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Lead Wind Turbine
Technician.
Sky Climber bills itself as "a leading independent service provider
(ISP) to the North American renewable energy industry, offering a
complete menu of wind, solar, and energy storage services to the
world's leading energy companies."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: 361-452-1279
Fax: 361-452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Hollis Files Suit in D. Montana
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowflake, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Jonathon Hollis, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snowflake, Inc., Case
No. 2:24-cv-00099-BMM (D. Mont., Sept. 13, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
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
SPINRITE HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Spinrite Holdings Inc. d/b/a
Yarnspirations, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-03544 (D. Minn., Sept.
5, 2024) arises because the Defendant's website
www.yarnspirations.com is not fully and equally accessible to
Plaintiffs and other 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 and its
implementing regulations.
As a consequence of Plaintiffs' experience visiting the Defendant's
website, including in the past year, and from an investigation
performed on their behalf, the Plaintiffs found Defendant's website
has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like
Plaintiffs full and equal access to important website content --
content the Defendant makes available to its sighted website
users.
In addition to the claim under the ADA, the Plaintiffs also assert
a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in
Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become,
and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities.
Spinrite Holdings Inc., d/b/a Yarnspirations, operates the website
which provides supplies for yarn crafts and fiber arts within the
crafting industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndselaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
ST. CAMILLUS NURSING: Laskowski Wins Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY LASKOWSKI,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
who were employed by St. Camillus Health and Rehabilitation
Facility and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by
St. Camillus Health and Rehabilitation Facility, v. ST. CAMILLUS
NURSING HOME COMPANY, INC., and any related entities doing business
as St. Camillus Health and Rehabilitation Facility, and ST.
CAMILLUS HEALTH CARE FACILITY, and any related entities doing
business as St. Camillus Health and Rehabilitation Facility, Case
No. 5:22-cv-00799-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge David Hurd
entered an order that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to amend is granted;
2. Plaintiff's amended complaint is accepted for filing;
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to docket the amended
complaint as the operative pleading in this action;
4. The Defendants shall file an answer to the amended complaint
on
or before Sept. 24, 2024;
5. Plaintiff's motion to certify this case as a class action
under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) is granted;
6. Plaintiff's claims under the NYLL (Counts II and III) are
certified as a Rule 23(b)(3) class action on behalf of a
class
defined as "all current and former employees of St. Camillus
Health and Rehabilitation Facility who worked as Licensed
Practical Nurses, Nursing Assistants, Personal Care
Assistants, Registered Nurses and other personal care support
employees in the state of New York from July 27, 2016 to the
present;"
7. Named Plaintiff Tammy Laskowski is appointed as class
plaintiff,
and Virginia & Ambinder LLP and Gattuso & Ciotoli, PLLC are
appointed as class counsel;
8. Plaintiff's motion for certification of a collective action
under FLSA section 216(b) is granted;
9. Plaintiff's claim under the FLSA (Count I) is certified as a
collective action on behalf of “all current and former
employees
of St. Camillus Health and Rehabilitation Facility who worked
as
Licensed Practical Nurses, Nursing Assistants, Personal Care
Assistants, Registered Nurses and other personal care support
employees in the state of New York from July 27, 2019 to the
present;"
10. Plaintiff's proposed notice is approved; and
11. Defendants are ordered to produce to plaintiff a list of the
names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email
addresses of employees falling into the classes as described
on
or before Oct. 30, 2024.
From September 2015 to October 2020, Laskowski was employed by St.
Camillus as a Licensed Practical Nurse.
St. Camillus offers independent living, assisted living,
specialized memory care, skilled nursing & short-term
rehabilitation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gyGi7E at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alanna Rose Sakovits, Esq.
Ladonna Lusher, Esq.
Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
- and -
Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
Ryan G. Files, Esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
The White House
7030 East Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
The Defendants are represented by:
Brienna L. Braman, Esq.
Michael J. Murphy, Esq.
BARCLAY DAMON LLP
80 State Street
Albany NY, 12207
STAKE CENTER: Monroe Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRAIN MONROE and ANDRELL
WHITE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. STAKE
CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00692-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a 7-day
extension of time to file their reply in support of certification
until Sept. 23, 2024.
To allow the Plaintiffs to fully and completely respond to the
issues raised and evidence presented in the Defendant's response,
the Plaintiffs request a 7-day extension to its current reply
deadline.
The Plaintiffs' counsel had filing deadlines in other matters that
prevented him from allocating sufficient time to respond to the
Defendant's extensive response within the short reply window.
The Plaintiffs' counsel conferred with the Defendant's counsel
regarding the requested extension and Defendant is not opposed. The
requested 7-day extension is made in good faith, for good cause,
and not for purposes of delay. The requested extension will not
impact the trial setting in this case.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Aug.
26, 2024. The Defendant filed its response on Sept. 9, 2024, which
makes the Plaintiffs' reply due on Sept. 16, 2024.
Stake Center is a provider of high-risk infrastructure and fiber
optic network locating services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CISG4l at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 –
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
STAPLES CONTRACT: Felix Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Javier Felix, individually‚ and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. STAPLES
CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 10‚ inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2424236 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. 12, 2024, and assigned Case No.
5:24-cv-01968.
The Complaint contains eleven causes of action against Defendant
alleging in violation of California Labor Code, California Business
& Professions Code and California Code of Regulations for failure
to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest
periods, unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, non-compliant wage
statements and failure to maintain payroll records, wages not
timely paid upon termination, failure to timely pay wages during
employment, failure to provide reporting time pay; unreimbursed
business expenses, unlawful business practices, and unfair business
practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Tritia M. Murata, Esq.
David P. Zins, Esq.
Maya Harel, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Phone: (213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Email: TritiaMurata@dwt.com
DavidZins@dwt.com
MayaHarel@dwt.com
STERLING METS: Sells Biometric Identifier Info, Dowling Says
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS DOWLING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STERLING METS, L.P. and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 718313/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Sept. 5,
2024) alleges that Defendants illegally sell, lease, trade, and/or
share biometric identifier information for value or otherwise
profit in violation of the New York City Biometrics Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants use facial recognition
and collect facial templates, and previously failed to disclose the
collection, retention, conversion, storage, and/or sharing of those
biometric identifiers, in addition to the selling, leasing, and
trading, of those biometric identifiers to the detriment of
consumers. The Defendants admit to the collection of biometric data
from Plaintiff and Class members; however, Defendants' unlawful use
of biometric identifier information for value or profit violates
state law, says the suit.
Plaintiff Dowling, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, brings this action under state law's private right of
action for the negligent, reckless, or intentional violation of the
statute.
Sterling Mets, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership with its
principal place of business in Queens, New York. The Company is
associated with the New York Mets, a professional baseball team and
uses facial recognition on its fans who attend games at its
stadium, Citi Field.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
Edward Ciolko, Esq.
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
STERLINGTON, PLLC
One World Trade Center
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 433-2995
E-mail: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com
ed.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com
blake.yagman@sterlingtonlaw.com
STEVE CORSI: Court Dismisses Filyaw Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILLIAN FILYAW,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STEVE CORSI, Chief Executive Officer of the Nebraska Department of
Health and Human Services, in his official capacity; and MATT
AHERN, Interim Director of the Division of Medicaid and Long-Term
Care, in his official capacity, Case No. 4:24-cv-03108-BCB-JMD (D.
Neb.), the Hon. Judge Brian Buescher entered an order that:
1. Plaintiff Gillian Filyaw's motion for oral argument is
denied;
2. Defendants Steve Corsi and Matt Ahern's Motion to Dismiss,
Filing 34, is granted; and
3. Plaintiff Gillian Filyaw's Motion to Certify Class, Filing 9,
is
denied as moot.
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims
contained in Filyaw's Complaint, Filing 1. After a "straightforward
inquiry," the Court finds that Filyaw neither alleges an ongoing
violation of federal law nor seeks relief properly characterized as
prospective.
As a result, Filyaw's claim does not fall within the Ex parte Young
exception to sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment bars
Filyaw's suit against Defendants.
Because Filyaw fails to allege an ongoing violation of federal law,
her desired declaratory relief also cannot be properly
characterized as prospective under Ex parte Young. Thus, Filyaw
fails to satisfy both Ex Parte Young requirements and her claim is
barred by sovereign immunity.
Filyaw alleges she was continuously enrolled in Nebraska Medicaid
coverage until her coverage terminated on May 1, 2024.
On June 11, 2024, Filyaw filed a Complaint in this case on behalf
of herself and a proposed class of Nebraskans "who, since March 1,
2023, have been or will be issued a written notice from Defendants
proposing to terminate their Nebraska Medicaid eligibility for the
reason 'income exceeds standards.'"
On June 20, 2024, the Court denied Filyaw's motion for temporary
restraining order.
The Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services is a state
agency of Nebraska, headquartered in Lincoln. The agency provides
health and human services for both families and regular patients.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bL8Y1a at no extra
charge.[CC]
STONEPEAK CERAMICS: Seeks More Time to File Response to Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MOORE and JESSIE
WOOLVERTON, individually, and on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. STONEPEAK CERAMICS, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00006 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order extending the deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs'
motion to facilitate notice to Sept. 19, 2024.
This request is occasioned by (a) counsel for Stonepeak throwing
her back out, which caused significant difficulty working for part
of last week, (b) unexpected and urgent workload on other matters,
and (c) difficulty in coordinating a significant number of
declarants whose declarations are needed to support opposition to a
motion that may have a significant impact on this litigation.
Counsel for Stonepeak conferred with the Plaintiffs' counsel
regarding the relief sought in this Motion, and they indicated they
do not oppose this Motion. This request is made in good faith and
not for purposes of undue delay and will not unduly prejudice any
of the parties involved in this action.
The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
The Plaintiffs filed their motion to facilitate notice on Aug. 15,
2024, making Stonepeak's original deadline to respond, Aug. 29,
2024.
Stonepeak is an American manufacturer of high-tech porcelain floor
and wall tiles.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZRVunM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
Christine Hogan, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH &
PROPHETE, LLP
750 Old Hickory Blvd., Suite 260-2
Brentwood, TN 37027
Telephone: (615) 340-3805
E-mail: rrustmann@constangy.com
chogan@constangy.com
STREETTEAM SOFTWARE: Ulmer Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLER ULMER; SERGIO
GIANCASPRO; CORI ERSHOWSKY; ALEXIS GERACI; JAMERE BOWERS; and ADAKU
IBEKWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. STREETTEAM SOFTWARE, LLC d/b/a POLLEN; NETWORK TRAVEL
EXPERIENCES, INC; JUSEXPERIENCES UK LIMITED; CALLUM NEGUSFANCEY;
LIAM NEGUS-FANCEY; and JAMES ELLIS, Case No. 2:23-cv-02226-HDV-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Nov. 14, 2024,
before the Honorable Hernan D. Vera, for an order:
1. Certifying the classes and subclass described as:
Wage Class:
"All U.S.-based employees of Defendants StreetTeam Software,
LLC
d/b/a Pollen and Network Travel Experiences, Inc. in the
United
States from July 1, 2022 through August 10, 2022 and who did
not
receive wages, benefits, or expense reimbursements for said
period.
New York Wage Subclass:
"All members of the Wage Class who were protected under the
New
York Labor Law during July 1, 2022 through Aug. 10, 2022."
California Wage Subclass:
"All members of the Wage Class who were protected under the
California Labor Code during July 1, 2022 through Aug. 10,
2022."
Nevada Wage Subclass:
"All members of the Wage Class who were protected under
Nevada
wage laws, including N.R.S., Chapter 608, during July 1, 2022
through Aug. 10, 2022.
Layoff Class:
"All U.S.-based employees of Defendants who were laid off
from
May 2022 through August 2022."
Severance Subclass:
"All members of the Layoff Class who had in place an
agreement
for payment of severance."
2. Appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the classes
proposed
or any other classes or subclasses approved by the Court;
3. Appointing Damion Robinson, Valdi Licul, Meredith Firetog,
and
William Baker as class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g); and
4. Issuance such orders concerning notice and other matters as
necessary to effectuate the Court's certification order.
Accordingly, the Defendants simply failed to pay employees for six
weeks leading up to their abrupt closure on August 10, 2022. On
that date, they laid off substantially all employees without prior
notice in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101, et seq. ("WARN Act").
StreetTeam specializes in the fields of events, travel, festivals,
entertainment, experiences, membership, youth culture, and
marketplace.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 10, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=98QGxe
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Valdi Licul, Esq.
Meredith Firetog, Esq.
William Baker, Esq.
WIGDOR LLP
85 5th Avenue, Floor 5
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
E-mail: vlicul@wigdorlaw.com
mfiretog@wigdorlaw.com1
wbaker@wigdorlaw.com
- and -
Damion D. D. Robinson, Esq.
DIAMOND McCARTHY LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (424) 278-2335
E-mail: damion.robinson@diamondmccarthy.com
SUB-ZERO GROUP: Bankhurst Seeks Stay of Merits-Based Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN BANKHURST, PAMELA
ANDERSON, JONATHAN ZANG, and JESSE KARP, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. SUB-ZERO GROUP INC., and WOLF
APPLIANCE, INC. Case No. 3:23-cv-00253-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion
and issue a temporary stay on merits-related litigation deadlines
pending the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
Given the current schedule, the Parties must engage in expensive
and time-consuming discovery (including the preparation of
merits-based expert reports) without knowing which claims or
classes will be proceeding. A stay of merits-based proceedings
pending resolution of class certification proceedings will avoid
these inefficiencies.
The stay will not create any additional burden on the Parties. And
it will remain in place only as long as the Court needs to rule on
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and for the Parties to
propose a mutually accommodating schedule following that order.
In September 2023, the Court issued the Pretrial Conference Order,
which set forth initial case deadlines including deadlines for the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, expert and fact
discovery, dispositive motions, and trial.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July
26, 2024. The motion will be fully briefed on Sept. 27, 2024.
Sub-Zero Group is a privately-held American company that
manufactures and sells luxury kitchen appliances.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qtpMMY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard Lyon, Esq.
Gabriel Doble, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Christin Cho, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: rick@dovel.com
gabe@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
christin@dovel.com
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Parties in Aquino Seek Permanent Sealing of Docs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ricardo Aquino, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Subaru of America, Inc. and Subaru Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-00990-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=ZcoWBc 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
T-MOBILE USA INC: Gomez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olvin Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown
Washington entities, Case No. 2:24-cv-01468 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 13,
2024), is brought against Defendant, seeking to recover for
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA") and to challenge its policies and practices of failing to
pay Plaintiff and Collective Members at the appropriate overtime
rates of pay for all overtime hours worked.
The Plaintiff's weekly hours vary, but on average, Plaintiff works
approximately forty hours per week, or more. However, Defendant
treats this $30 in on-call pay as one hour worked for purposes of
calculating the regular rate and overtime pay. Thus, if Plaintiff
was scheduled to be available for a potential call-out outside his
normal work schedule five times in a pay-period, Defendant would
consider this as five hours worked at a rate of $30 per hour, for a
total of $150 in compensation.
By treating this $30 in on-call pay as one hour worked for purposes
of calculating the regular rate and overtime rates of pay,
Defendant miscalculates the regular rate of pay and, thus, pays
Plaintiff and Collective Members at a lower rate of overtime
compensation to which they are entitled to under the FLSA. This
deprives Plaintiff and Collective Members of substantial amounts of
pay to which they are entitled under Federal and State law, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a Senior
Technician since 2014.
The Defendant is based out of Bellevue, Washington and provides
wireless telecommunication services, including voice, text, video,
and data communications, across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 442-9106
Fax: (206) 441-9711
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
- and -
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com
TAMAQUA TRANSFER: Filing for Conditional Status Due Jan. 6, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR YOUMANS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TAMAQUA TRANSFER AND RECYCLING, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00949-JKM
(M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Julia Munley entered an order that:
1. The deadline for joining additional parties is Oct. 28, 2024;
2. The deadline for amending pleadings is Oct. 28, 2024;
3. The motion for conditional certification pursuant to 29
U.S.C.
section 216(b) shall be filed by Jan. 6, 2025; and
4. Fact discovery related to the motion for conditional
certification shall be completed by Jan. 6, 2025.
Tamaqua is a waste management company, specializing in the
collection and processing of recyclable materials.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mjBZVT at no extra
charge.[CC]
TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert Reply in Nguyen-Wilhite Due Sept. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nguyen-Wilhite v.
Tapestry, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03339-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Jennifer Rochon entered an order granting the joint letter
motion regarding class certification and dispositive motion
deadlines.
-- The Plaintiff's reply in support of her motion for class
certification shall be filed by Sept. 20, 2024.
-- Motions for summary judgment shall be due 60 days after the
Court's order resolving the pending motions for class
certification.
-- Oppositions shall be due 45 days after any motions are filed.
-- Any replies shall be filed within 21 days of opposition
briefs.
Tapestry is an American multinational fashion holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yPt13O at no extra
charge.[CC]
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Response to Class Cert Bids in Thomas Due Oct. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS, et al., v.
TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00460 (W.D. Pa., Filed April 9,
2021), the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman entered a scheduling
order:
-- Response to motions to certify class due by: Oct. 3, 2024
-- Reply due by: Nov. 4, 2024
-- Sur-Reply due by: Dec. 4,
2024
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
concerning denial of overtime compensation.
TEKsystems provides information technology services.[CC]
TELMATE LLC: Cooper Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
------------------------------------------------------
Amber Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TELMATE LLC d/b/a VIAPATH TECHNOLOGIES, Case No.
1:24-cv-01622 (E.D. Va., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members', personally identifiable information
("PII"), and financial information stored within Defendant's
information network.
The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII financial information. The Defendant knew or should
have known, that Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendant's
services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly
confidential PII and financial information.
On no later than August 13, 2020, upon information and belief,
unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information as
hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of
the PII and financial information, including marketing and selling
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information.
Personally identifiable information ("PII") generally incorporates
information that can be used to distinguish or trace an
individual's identity, and is generally defined to include certain
identifiers that do not on their face name an individual, but that
is considered to be particularly sensitive and/or valuable if in
the wrong hands (for example, Social Security numbers, passport
numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account numbers).
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use.
As a result, the PII and financial information of Plaintiff and
Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and
unauthorized third party--an undoubtedly nefarious third party that
seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and
Class Members in the future, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.
The Defendant offers various products and services to jails,
prisons, and detention facilities, to individual consumers
incarcerated in these facilities, and to family, friends, and other
contacts of incarcerated consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310
Richmond, VA 23223
Phone: (804) 351-9040
Facsimile: (804) 351-9170
Email: Lee@bbtrial.com
- and -
Nicholas J.N. Stamatis, Esq.
BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
1010 N. Glebe Road, Suite 310
Arlington, VA 22201
Phone: (703) 291-6656
Facsimile: (703) 563-6692
Email: nick@bbtrial.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Oct. 17, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA GANTHER, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated employees, and on
behalf of the general public; v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., a
Maryland Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
4:22-cv-04230-KAW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kandis Westmore
entered an order modifying scheduling order as follows:
a. The deadline to complete mediation is July 31, 2025.
b. The deadline to file a motion for class certification is
Oct. 17, 2025.
c. The deadline to file an opposition to the motion for class
certification is Nov. 14, 2025.
d. The deadline to file a reply to the opposition to the
motion
for class certification is Dec. 12, 2025.
e. The motion for class certification will be heard on Feb.
5,
2026 at 1:30 P.M.
f. A further case management conference is set for March 10,
2026 at 1:30 P.M.
Transdev Services provides passenger transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IDN2BG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
Nidah Farishta, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
5743 Corsa Ave, Suite 123
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Telephone: (818) 293-5623
Facsimile (888) 850-1310
E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
Nidah@OLFLA.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
Olga Savage, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
1999 Harrison St., Suite 700
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 768-0650
Facsimile: (510) 768-0651
E-mail: Tyler.Paetkau@huschblackwell.com
Olga.Savage@huschblackwell.com
UNITED PARCEL: Discovery Stayed in Orr Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA ORR, v. UNITED
PARCEL SERVICE, INC., et al. Case No. 5:24-cv-00421-SSS-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes entered an order that
discovery is stayed pending ruling on the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration and the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion
for class certification shall be as follows:
Event Date
Deadline for Plaintiff to File Motion 90 days after the
for Class Certification and Any Class Court issues an
order
Certification Expert Report on Defendant's
Motion
to Compel
Arbitration.
Deadline for Defendant to File Opposition 14 days after Motion
to Class Certification and Any Class for Class
Certification Expert Report Certification is
filed.
Deadline for Plaintiff to File Reply in 21 days after Motion
Support of Motion for Class Certification for Class
and Any Class Certification Rebuttal Certification is
filed.
Expert Report
Class Certification Hearing 35 days after Reply
on Motion for Class
Certification is
filed.
United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and
supply chain management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ICfJrN at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Settlement Stipulation Filing Due Nov. 12
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Volkova v. United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-07565 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge
Frederic Block entered an order on motion to certify class order on
motion to stay plaintiff's pending motion for class certification
is administratively dismissed without prejudice to re-filing by
letter application if the settlement is not finalized.
-- By Nov. 12, 2024, counsel shall either file their stipulation
of
settlement or a status report letter as to their settlement.
-- Upon receipt of this email counsel shall confirm with each
other
that this telephone conference is cancelled.
The nature of suit states other statutory actions.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is an agency of the
United States Department of Homeland Security that administers the
country's naturalization and immigration system.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEFINA DOE; ISABELA DOE;
COMMOR JEROME WELCH; FELIPE NIOMAR MARTINEZ ORTIZ; and JOSE DOE; on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and THE
AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE, IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROGRAM, v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security, in his official capacity; PATRICK J.
LECHLEITNER, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
("ICE"), in his official capacity; DANIEL A. BIBLE, Executive
Associate Director of ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations, in
his official capacity; CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, Field Office Director for
the ICE Philadelphia Field Office, in her official capacity;
FRANCIS KEMP, Assistant Field Office Director for the ICE
Philadelphia Field Office, in his official capacity, Case No.
2:24-cv-09105-MEF (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on
Oct. 7, 2024, for an Order pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (g)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
(1) certifying Proposed Class;
(2) appointing Individual Plaintiffs to serve as representatives
of
the class; and
(3) appointing Lowenstein Sandler LLP, the Legal Services of
New
Jersey, and the Harvard Immigration & Refugee Clinical
Program
as Co-Class Counsel.
US Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive
department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to
the interior or home ministries of other countries.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kgr90o at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
Alexander Shalom, Esq.
Natalie J. Kraner, Esq.
Naomi D. Barrowclough, Esq.
Anish Patel, Esq.
Ruth Zimmerman, Esq.
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 597-2500
- and -
Shira Wisotsky, Esq.
Raquiba Huq, Esq.
Zoe Burke, Esq.
Emily Thorton, Esq.
LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW JERSEY
Edison, NJ 08818
Telephone: (908) 882-2665
- and -
Tiffany Lieu, Esq.
Philip L. Torrey, Esq.
CRIMMIGRATION CLINIC
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
IMMIGRATION &
REFUGEE CLINICAL PROGRAM
6 Everett Street, Suite 3106
Cambridge, MA 02138
Telephone: (617) 496-5497
UNITED SURGICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Perkins Due Nov. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perkins, et al., v. United
Surgical Partners International Inc., et al., Case No.
3:21-cv-00973 (N.D. Tex., Filed Apil 30, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Brantley Starr entered an order granting motion to extend class
certification deadlines:
-- The deadline to complete class Nov. 8, 2024
certification discovery is:
-- The deadline to file any motion Nov. 8, 2024
for class certification is:
-- The deadline to file any opposition Jan. 10, 2025
to a class certification motion is:
-- The deadline for filing any reply Feb. 7, 2025
in support of a class certification
motion is:
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).
United Surgical is an American ambulatory care company based in
Dallas, Texas.[CC]
US DHS: Sued Over Unlawful Refusal Policy and Practice
------------------------------------------------------
Josefina Doe; Isabela Doe; Commor Jerome Welch; Felipe Niomar
Martinez Ortiz; and Jose Doe; on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and THE AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE
COMMITTEE, IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROGRAM v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY ("DHS"); U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; Case
No. 2:24-cv-09105 (D.N.J., Sept. 11, 2024), is brought to challenge
Defendants' unconstitutional policy and practice of denying the
people detained there access to video conferencing technology like
Zoom, or, when appropriate, the telephone, to appear and
participate in their pending criminal proceedings in New Jersey
(the "Refusal Policy and Practice").
The Individual Plaintiffs are noncitizens with unresolved criminal
matters in New Jersey Superior and/or Municipal courts (hereinafter
"State-court criminal matters" or "proceedings") who were
apprehended in New Jersey and are currently detained by Defendant
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") at its Moshannon Valley
Processing Center ("Moshannon") in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania.
Moshannon routinely allows the Individual Plaintiffs and the
Putative Class to participate in both immigration and certain
family-court hearings remotely, via Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or the
telephone. However, when it comes to State-court criminal
proceedings, Moshannon denies the Individual Plaintiffs and the
Putative Class the same opportunity to participate in those
proceedings remotely. There is no valid reason for Moshannon to
distinguish between immigration and certain family-court
proceedings, on the one hand (where virtual participation is
allowed), and State-court criminal proceedings on the other hand
(where virtual participation is not allowed). This is the very
definition of an arbitrary, capricious, and nonsensical policy,
especially in this day and age when, for the sake of efficiency and
public health, remote hearings have become commonplace in all
contexts.
The remedy that Plaintiffs and the Class seek is simple – a
declaration that the Refusal Policy and Practice is
unconstitutional and an injunction requiring Defendants to allow
the Individual Plaintiffs and the Putative Class to participate in
New Jersey criminal proceedings through remote means, such as Zoom,
Microsoft Teams, WebEx, or, if appropriate, the telephone, to
access state court proceedings in the same way that Defendants
permit people in their custody to use the same technology to access
other types of legal proceedings, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are noncitizens with unresolved criminal matters in
New Jersey Superior and/or Municipal courts.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet department of the
United States federal government.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
Alexander Shalom, Esq.
Natalie J. Kraner, Esq.
Naomi D. Barrowclough, Esq.
Anish Patel, Esq.
Ruth Zimmerman, Esq.
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 597-2500
- and -
Shira Wisotsky, Esq.
Raquiba Huq, Esq.
Zoe Burke, Esq.
Emily Thornton, Esq.
LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW JERSEY
100 Metroplex Drive, Suite 402
Edison, NJ 08817
Phone: (908) 882-2665
- and -
Tiffany J. Lieu, Esq.
Philip L. Torrey, Esq.
CRIMMIGRATION CLINIC HARVARD IMMIGRATION & REFUGEE
CLINICAL PROGRAM
6 Everett Street, Suite 3106
Cambridge, MS 02138
Phone: (617) 496-5497
VANGUARD GROUP: Oral Argument Set for Oct. 22 in Funds Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: VANGUARD CHESTER FUNDS LITIGATION,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00955-JFM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Murphy
entered an order setting oral argument on Oct. 22, 2024, at
2:00P.M. in Courtroom 3B, Third Floor, United States Courthouse,
601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hFxlEA at no extra
charge.[CC]
VEOLIA NORTH: Bid to Exclude Expert's Opinions Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Waid, et al., v. Snyder,
et al. (Flint Water Cases), Case No. 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-EAS (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith Levy entered an order granting in
part Veolia North America's (VNA's) motion with respect to Dr.
Specht's opinions related to his estimate of bone lead half-life.
Dr. Specht's opinions and methodology are not junk science. He is
qualified to offer his opinions, and he draws on his peer-reviewed
and published research to do so.
VNA's experts' competing scientific theories, its experts'
criticisms and objections, and its views on the proper application
of Dr. Specht’s methodology may be raised at trial, but they do
not provide a basis to exclude this testimony.
Accordingly, VNA's arguments for excluding Dr. Specht's testimony
in its entirety are denied.
The Court therefore cannot conclude that Dr. Specht's estimate is
more likely than not based on sufficient facts and data. Dr. Specht
may not offer testimony about his five-year estimate for bone lead
half-life.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mE6L1R at no extra
charge.[CC]
WEEDS R US: Igartua Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEEDS R US INC. d/b/a LIBERTY BUDS,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06754 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2024) is a
civil action against Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website www.libertybudsnyc.com
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State
Civil Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been denied the full
use and enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services offered to
the general public, on Defendant's website in Bronx County. These
access barriers that Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of
Plaintiff's full and equal access multiple times in the past, and
now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the
Defendant's website in the future.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Weeds R Us Inc., d/b/a Liberty Buds, operates the website that
serves as a recreational cannabis dispensary.[BN]
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
WILLIAM LEE: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TENNESSEE CONFERENCE of
the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the ADVANCEMENT of COLORED PEOPLE, et
al., v. WILLIAM LEE, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01039 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for reconsideration.
The Defendants have not informed the Court of their position as to
whether the July 2023 policy changes affect the class certification
analysis. Because the Defendants have not identified any mistake in
the Court's prior Order, the Defendants are not entitled to relief
under Rule 60(a), the Court says.
Because the Court still needs to know Defendants' position as to
how, if at all, the July 2023 policy changes affect the class
certification analysis, on or before Sept. 19, 2024, the Defendants
shall file a brief, not to exceed ten pages in length, "addressing
how, if at all, the July 2023 policy changes and any [subsequent]
changes … affect the class certification analysis."
On Nov. 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification of
Counts One, Two, and Three under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(2).
On Aug. 20, 2024, Defendants filed the pending motion to reconsider
the Order entered on Aug. 19, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zbVY6S at no extra
charge.[CC]
WILLIAM MCDONALD: Wilkerson's FAC Dismissed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALISA WILKERSON, v.
WILLIAM MCDONALD GLADSON, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00372-MMH-PRL
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered an order
that:
1. Malisa Wilkerson's First Amended Complaint is dismissed
without
prejudice.
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any deadlines
or
pending motions as moot and close the file.
3. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to enter judgment
in
accordance with this Order.
Despite the Court's guidance on the problems with her Complaint,
and an opportunity to fix those deficiencies, Wilkerson's First
Amended Complaint remains an indecipherable shotgun pleading and
problematically, one filed on behalf of a party that Wilkerson is
not authorized to represent.
While dismissal with prejudice would be appropriate given
Wilkerson's failure to remedy her pleading, because she is
attempting to bring claims on Stocker's behalf the Court finds it
appropriate to dismiss this action without prejudice to Stocker
refiling on his own behalf.
The Plaintiff Malisa Wilkerson, who is proceeding pro se, initiated
this action on July 31, 2024, by filing a Complaint for a Civil
Case against the Defendants.
On Sept. 3, 2024, Wilkerson filed a pleading captioned "Demand
Motion to Discovery, Demand Motion to Dismiss, Demand Relief and
Remedy," which appears to be her amended complaint.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zP7SFS at no extra
charge.[CC]
WILSON & COMPANY: Senecal Files Suit in D. New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilson & Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Roberta Senecal, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Wilson & Company, Inc.,
Engineers & Architects, Case No. 1:24-cv-00904-SCY-KK (D.N.M.,
Sept. 12, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury.
Wilson & Company -- https://www.wilsonco.com/ -- provides
award-winning engineering, architecture, planning, environmental,
survey & geospatial, and construction management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Lincoln Combs, Esq.
O'STEEN & HARRISON, PLC
300 W. Clarendon Ave., Ste. 400
Phoenix, AZ 85013
Phone: (602) 252-8888
Fax: (602) 274-1209
Email: lcombs@vanosteen.com
WSCO PETROLEUM: Dale Suit Removed to D. Oregon
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Scott Dale, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated customers v. WSCO PETROLEUM CORP., Case No.
24CV39388 was removed from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon
for the County of Multnomah, to the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon on Sept. 12, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-01545-JR.
The complaint asserts a claim for violations of ORS 807.750(2) and
ORS 807.750(3), arising from the alleged swiping of customer driver
licenses and identification cards during the purchase of age
restricted goods and the storing, selling, or sharing of personal
information collected from the swiping of customer driver licenses.
The Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to recover actual damages
or $1,000, whichever is greater, under ORS 807.850(8). The
Plaintiff contends that if the court finds that the alleged conduct
was willful or knowing, the court should increase the amount of the
award to no more than three times the amount otherwise available
under ORS.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joshua M. Sasaki, P.C., Esq.
John C. Clarke, Esq.
MILLER NASH LLP
1140 SW Washington St, Ste 700
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: 503.224.5858
Facsimile: 503.224.0155
Email: josh.sasaki@millernash.com
john.clarke@millernash.com
ZOOM VIDEO: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 23, 2024, that on
October 18, 2023, defendants in a consolidated case filed their
motion to dismiss the amended complaint after they filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated case and the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on June 12, 2023 and August 11, 2023,
respectively.
On December 22, 2023, plaintiff filed her opposition to the motion
to dismiss, and on January 26, 2024, defendants filed their reply
in support of the motion to dismiss.
Beginning on March 30, 2020, multiple putative class actions were
filed against the company in various U.S. federal district courts
and state courts relating to its alleged privacy and security
practices, including alleged data sharing with third parties.
The plaintiffs claim violations of a variety of state consumer
protection and privacy laws, and also assert state constitutional
and common law claims, such as negligence and unjust enrichment.
The U.S. Privacy Class Actions seek to certify both nationwide and
state-specific classes of individuals using the company's services
in certain time periods.
The plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and monetary
relief, including restitution, statutory and actual damages,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The federal cases have been
transferred to and consolidated in the NDCA with the company's
consent; lead plaintiffs' counsel have been appointed; and
plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated class action
complaint on October 28, 2020.
On March 11, 2021, the court granted in part, and denied in part,
the company's motion to dismiss, and gave plaintiffs leave to
amend. On July 30, 2021, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with plaintiffs to settle the action on a class-wide
basis, and plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement with the court on July 31, 2021.
In October 21, 2021, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the company have
paid $85.0 million into an escrow account that will be used to pay
claims filed by settlement class members, attorneys' fees and
expenses, administrative costs, and service payments to plaintiffs.
On April 22, 2022, the court granted final approval of the
settlement. On May 19, 2022, two objectors to the settlement
appealed the court's final approval order. On May 20, 2022, a third
objector appealed the court's final approval order. On October 17,
2022, the company, plaintiffs, and all three objector-appellants
agreed to settle the appeals, and on December 16, 2022, the court
approved the settlements. On January 13, 2023, an appeal of the
order approving the objector-appellant settlements was filed.
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. is a software company based in
California.
ZOOM VIDEO: To Settle Securities Suit in CA Court
-------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 23, 2024, that on July
17, 2023, the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of
settlement to resolve a securities class action complaints filed
against Zoom and two of its officers in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.
Under the terms of the stipulation, in exchange for the release and
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all defendants in
the matter, Zoom agreed to pay $150.0 million. The stipulation and
settlement remain subject to preliminary and final approval by the
court.
On July 25, 2023, the court entered an order staying further
proceedings in the matter pending the filing of a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 17, 2023, lead
plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement. A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was held on June 13, 2024.
On April 7, 2020 and April 8, 2020, said class action complaints
were filed against Zoom and two of its officers in said court by
purported stockholders. The complaints allege, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions
of material fact about its data privacy and security measures. The
complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.
On May 18, 2020, the actions were consolidated. On November 4,
2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On December 23, 2020,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. Zoom filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on May 20, 2021.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 9,
2021. Zoom’s reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed
on August 9, 2021. On February 16, 2022, the court granted in part,
and denied in part, the motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2022, Zoom
moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling on the motion to
dismiss. On March 22, 2022, the court ordered plaintiff to respond
to the motion, which plaintiff did on March 29, 2022. On April 22,
2022, the company answered the complaint. On March 8, 2023, the
court denied the motion for reconsideration. On April 6, 2023, the
court entered a scheduling order.
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. is a software company based in
California.
*********
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 ***