/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240926.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 26, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 194 Headlines 201 EAST 30TH CORP: Igartua Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website 367 FAMOUS DELI: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. 3M COMPANY: Butler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 41-06 BELL BLVD: Rosario Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Court Defers Ruling on Bid to Certify Class ALDEN SHOE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Alleges ALTMAN SPECIALTY: Shuta Files Suit in S.D. California AMAZON.COM INC: Bid for Class Certification Renoted for Nov. 21 AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Ramirez Suit Over False Sale Price Ads AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Settlement in Kryzhanovskiy Gets Final Nod ATKORE INC: Conspires to Fix PVC Pipes' Prices, TC Suit Says AVANADE INC: Bid for Class Certification Continued to July 18, 2025 BANK OF AMERICA: Allen Saltzman Breach Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Stay Proceedings Granted in Part BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply Under Seal BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks to Seal Corrected Docs in Unemployment Suit BARNANA PBC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: McCoy Suit Removed to D. Colorado BAUSCH & LOMB: Raskin Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. BAYER CORP: Can Redact Portions of Class Cert Opposition Brief BAYER HEALTHCARE: Drake Wins Class Status Bid BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Suarez Says BERTIE MANAGEMENT: Feltzin Sues Over Denial of Access to Property BG RETAIL LLC: Carr Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts BOCKMON & WOODY: Hardin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BREWERS HILL REALTY: Moss Sues Over Rooftop Pool Collapse BROOKLYN BEDDING: Conclusion of Fact Discovery Due Dec. 4 BUILDTECH CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Trujillo Says BYTEDANCE INC: Collects Children's Personal Info, Villanueva Says CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Sayah Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Brown Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI CHARTER FOODS: CMC in Fitch Class Action Set for Oct. 16 CHARTER FOODS: CMC in Haney Class Action Set for Oct. 16 CHRIS BRUN: Petition for Leave to Appoint Class Counsel Tossed CLEWS ENERGY SERVICES: Aragon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages COMMUNITY MINERALS II: Bagley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio COTTAGES WI: Fails to Pay Med Passers' OT Wages Under FLSA CREWS CONTROL: Conditional Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 30 DILLON COMPANIES: Ebersole Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio DOCTOR HAAS: Hunter Files Suit in D. South Dakota DREAM GAMES: Vollmuth Hits Addictive Gambling In-Game Features ECOLAB PRODUCTION: Perez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. EXABEAM INC: Mihovilovic Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. FAVORITE WORLD: Minor Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid FCA US: Oldson Suit Seeks to Modify Class Certification Order GEICO CASUALTY: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Perkins Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Wins Summary Judgment v. White GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Files Bid to Appeal Ruling in Trauernicht Suit GERBER PRODUCTS: Velasco Balks at Website's Illegal Data Gathering GKN DRIVELINE: Ayers Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action GOOGLE LLC: Intercepts Protected Personal Info, M.D. Suit Says GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA: Lewis Balks at Deceptive Utility Admin Fees HOMEADVISOR INC: Wins Summary Judgment vs Airquip HSNI LLC: Belin Suit Removed to C.D. California HUMANIGEN INC: Class Settlement in Pieroni Suit Gets Final Nod INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Carrero Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal. JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Underwood Says JOHN HANCOCK: Filing for Class Status Bids Due Nov. 7, 2025 KRAFT HEINZ: Appeals Denied Bid to Stay Remand Order in Hortin Suit KRG KINGS: Plaintiffs Awarded $433,150 in Attorneys' Fees MAPLEBEAR INC: Chambers Appeals Arbitration Order in FLSA Suit MARYGOLD COS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Lucas Class Suit MCMENAMINS INC: Wins Summary Judgment vs Leonard MDL 2873: Resolme Suit Alleges Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Roberson Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Rodriguez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Santiago Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure MINNESOTA: Harpstead Appeals Denied Bill of Costs in Karsjens Suit NEW YORK: Bergnes Appeals 2nd Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit NEW YORK: Plaintiffs Allowed to File Third Amended Complaint PAC HOUSE: Deadline to Complete Class Cert Discovery Extended PNC INVESTMENTS: Vallin Sues Over Unlawful Cash Sweep Program QUINSTREET INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Adjourned to Feb. 24, 2025 RBS CITIZENS: Bid to Decertify PMWA Subclasses Tossed RICHLAND COUNTY, SC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ROBERT HALF: Bid to Decertify Class in Magallon Tossed SAINT-GOBAIN: DuPont's Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony Tossed SECURED MARKETING: Heidarpour Seeks to Certify Class SEEKING ALPHA: Lingley Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit SELECT PORTFOLIO: Court Narrows Claims in DeSimone Suit SELECT PORTFOLIO: Johnson Suit Removed to D. Oregon SETSCHEDULE LLC: Smith Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama SNOW COMMERCE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Herrera Suit Alleges STEVE MADDEN: Wilkins Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TANDYM GROUP: Court Terminates Armstrong Class Action TC 860: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Class Suit Alleges TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE: Paxton Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages VIAQUEST LLC: Metzger Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ********* 201 EAST 30TH CORP: Igartua Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Igartua, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 201 EAST 30TH CORP. d/b/a SMILEY EXOTICS NY, Case No. 1:24-cv-07111 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 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.smileyexoticsny.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. 201 EAST 30TH CORP. d/b/a SMILEY EXOTICS NY is a New York corporation that owns and maintains a New York dispensary, and concomitant Website, www.smileyexoticsny.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 367 FAMOUS DELI: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ ANGEL MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 367 FAMOUS DELI 1 CORP. (D/B/A FAMOUS DELI), 367 FAMOUS DELI CORP (D/B/A FAMOUS DELI), NASEEM HASAN, and HAMZA HASAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06352 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Mendez was employed by the Defendants as a cashier, cook, and stocker at Famous Deli from approximately November 4, 2014 until September 2021. She alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide a written wage notice, and failure to furnish an accurate wage statement. 367 Famous Deli 1 Corp. owns, operates, and controls a deli, located in Brooklyn, New York under the name "Famous Deli."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 3M COMPANY: Butler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Butler, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-04948-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 18, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury 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. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased and consumed water from public and/or private water suppliers in Virginia which were contaminated with Defendants' fluorochemical products and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, and/or as a result of Defendants' fluorochemical products in water. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Quillin, Esq. O'LEARY, SHELTON, CORRIGAN, PETERSON, DALTON, & QUILLIN, LLC 1034 S. Brentwood Blvd., 23rd Fl., PH 1-A, St. Louis, MO 63117 Phone: (314) 405-9000 telephone Fax: (314) 405-9999 Email: quillin@osclaw.com 41-06 BELL BLVD: Rosario Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Ortiz Rosario, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 41-06 BELL BLVD. BAKERY LLC d/b/a MARTHA'S COUNTRY BAKERY and GEORGIOS STERTSIOS, NICHOLAS ZANNIKOS, and IRENE ZANNIKOS, as individuals, Case No. 1:24-cv-06644 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2024), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. Although Plaintiff regularly worked 51 to 61 hours or more hours per week during the relevant statutory period, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants. 41-06 BELL BLVD. BAKERY LLC d/b/a MARTHA'S COUNTRY BAKERY is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Court Defers Ruling on Bid to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY HAMM, ET AL., V. ACADIA HEALTHCARE CO., INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-01515-SM-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an order deferring the determination of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a). However, because the Plaintiffs do not provide an adequate trial plan or proposal as to how this case may be tried on a class basis, the Court will defer a decision as to the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and superiority. The Court further entered an order that: -- Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of their Motion to Certify, which shall include a detailed trial plan, on or before Sept. 30, 2024. -- Defendants are granted leave to file a supplemental memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify, specifically addressing issues related to the proposed trial plan which will be set forth in Plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum, on or before Oct. 15, 2024. On Jan. 10, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify a putative class of: "all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees, providing patient care," "employed by the Defendants at [River Place] at any time until resolution of this action." The Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify on April 24, 2024, at which the parties offered expert testimony. The Plaintiff Hamm worked as a nurse at Red River Hospital in Wichita Falls, Texas, from February 2015 to December 2019, and then at River Place Behavioral Health in LaPlace, Louisiana, from December 2019 to September 2020. Acadia is an American provider of for-profit behavioral healthcare services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6rjSSA at no extra charge.[CC] ALDEN SHOE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Alden Shoe Company, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-06507 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.aldenmadison.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Alden Shoe Company provides to their non-disabled customers through its website, the suit contends. On June 10, 2024, the Plaintiff made an attempt to visit and use Aldenmadison.com. The Plaintiff intended to buy dress shoes and was looking for local stores specializing in high-quality men's footwear. Upon accessing the site, he encountered numerous accessibility issues, making it difficult to select a product of interest. On the Product Detail page, the Plaintiff found that the selection of sizes was inaccessible. Additionally, adding the product to the cart did not provide any feedback, leaving him unaware if the action was successful. Consequently, he was unable to purchase the product he wanted, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Alden Shoe Company's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Mr. Trippett is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Alden Shoe specializes in high-quality footwear including shoes, boots, loafers, belts, wallets, card holders, and shoe care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com ALTMAN SPECIALTY: Shuta Files Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Altman Specialty Plants, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Shuta, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Altman Specialty Plants, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01686-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., Sept. 20, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Altman Plants -- https://altmanplants.com/ -- is a leading breeder & grower of succulents, roses, hibiscus, perennials, annuals, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: lvn@colevannote.com sec@colevannote.com AMAZON.COM INC: Bid for Class Certification Renoted for Nov. 21 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAELI GARNER, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00750-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert Lasnik entered an order granting in part Amazon's Motion for Relief from Deadline Under Local Civil Rule 7(j). The Clerk of Court is directed to renote plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the Court's calendar for Nov. 21, 2024. Amazon's opposition shall be filed on or before Oct. 7, 2024. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BSXLz2 at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Ramirez Suit Over False Sale Price Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01444 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 12, 2024) alleges that Defendants made and disseminated untrue and misleading statements of facts in their advertisements to Class members, constituting acts of unfair methods of competition and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants committed "unfair" acts by falsely advertising that their Fire TVs were on sale, that the sale was limited in time, that the Fire TVs had higher regular prices, market values, and List Prices used within the last 90 days and that customers were receiving discounts, when none of this was true. This caused Plaintiff and the Class to make purchases they otherwise would not have made, pay more for their purchases, and deprived them of their expectancy interest in receiving the Fire TVs as advertised. The harm to Plaintiff and the Class greatly outweighs the public utility of Defendants' conduct. There is no public utility to misrepresenting the price of a consumer product. The Plaintiff and the Class' injury was not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. Misleading consumer products only injure healthy competition and harm consumers, says the suit. Amazon.com, Inc., doing business as Amazon, is an American multinational technology company, engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Wyatt, Esq. WYATT GRONSKI PLLC 371 NE Gilman Blvd., Suite 260 Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 395-7784 E-mail: todd@wdlawgroup.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Settlement in Kryzhanovskiy Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEILANI KRYZHANOVSKIY, PATRICIA SALAZAR, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a proxy for the LWDA, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01292-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara McAuliffe entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement. The Court finally approves the settlement of this class action in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and finds that the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement described therein, and the Gross Settlement Fund of $3,000,000.00 are fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only: "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants in California between July 22, 2017 and Nov. 7, 2023 who received a Signing Bonus and/or On Sign Bonus in the same workweek as he/she worked overtime, including double-time." The PAGA award of $100,000.00 from the Gross Settlement Fund, which includes payment of $75,000.00 to California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the remainder distributed to aggrieved employees, is approved. The Settlement Administrator shall issue the Labor & Workforce Development Agency Payment directly to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the Funding Date. Settlement Administration costs in the amount of $24,850.00 to be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund to Atticus Administration, LLC are approved. The Plaintiffs' motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement Payments is granted. Class Counsel's request for approval of attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,000,000.00 or 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Fund is granted. The Settlement Administrator shall issue payment to Class Counsel within 21 calendar days of the Funding Date. Class Counsel's request for approval of litigation costs in the amount of $24,642.43 is granted. Amazon.com provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xLwgdR at no extra charge.[CC] ATKORE INC: Conspires to Fix PVC Pipes' Prices, TC Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ TC Construction, Inc. individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atkore, Inc., Cantex Inc., Diamond Plastics Corporation, IPEX USA LLC, JM Eagle, Inc., National Pipe & Plastics, Inc., Oil Price Information Service, LLC, Otter Tail Corporation, Prime Conduit, Inc., Southern Pipe, Inc., and Westlake Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08281 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 11, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief and damages under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and for treble damages under the antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws of several states against Defendants. The Plaintiff brings this civil antitrust action on behalf of itself individually and on behalf of proposed Classes consisting of all persons and entities who purchased PVC municipal water pipes or PVC electrical conduit from a Defendant, through a non-converter PVC pipe seller, in the United States from at least January 1, 2021, to the present. During the Class Period, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants and their Co-conspirators conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of PVC municipal water pipes and PVC electrical conduit pipes (together, "PVC Pipes") in the United States. The Defendants' anticompetitive actions widened the spread between the price that they pay to manufacture PVC Pipes and the price at which they sold PVC Pipes. As a result of Defendants' and their Co-Conspirators' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class have been injured in their business and property in that they have paid more for PVC Pipes they purchased during the Class Period than they otherwise would have paid but for Defendants' conduct. Atkore, Inc. manufactures and supplies metal products and electrical raceway solutions. The Company offers steel tubes and pipes, electrical conduit, armored wire and cable, cable trays, metal framing systems, and building components.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Clark, Esq. Simeon A. Morbey, Esq. Eura Chang, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com samorbey@locklaw.com echang@locklaw.com - and - Kyle J. Pozan, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 1165 N. Clark Street, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60610 Telephone: (312) 205-8968 E-mail: kjpozan@locklaw.com - and - Lee Albert, Esq. Brian D. Brooks, Esq. Brian Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com bbrooks@glancylaw.com bmurray@glancylaw.com AVANADE INC: Bid for Class Certification Continued to July 18, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Charles Breyer entered an order continuing the class certification motion and related deadlines 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 Mar. 3, 2025 Sept. 2, 2025 Certification Deadline: Hearing on Motion for Class April 4, 2025 Oct. 3, 2025 Certification: at 10:00 a.m. at 10:00 a.m. Avanade is a global professional services company providing IT consulting and services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pFt3l3 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 Defendants are 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 BANK OF AMERICA: Allen Saltzman Breach Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ALLEN SALTZMAN LLP, a limited liability partnership; ANDREW McGINNIS, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2401597, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on September 19, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01956 to the proceeding. On March 25, 2024, Plaintiff Saltzman filed a class action complaint and demand for jury trial against Bank of America. He asserted two claims: (1) breach of contract, and (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, arising from the bank's alleged practice of placing holds on certain deposits to "Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts" in purported violation of federal law. Bank of America, N.A. operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Bank of America serves clients worldwide.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Laura A. Stoll, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 426-2500 Facsimile: (213) 623-1673 BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Stay Proceedings Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order granting in part Individual Plaintiffs' expedited motion to stay their proceedings until a ruling on the class certification motion. Within 10 day of the filing of the Court's order on the class certification motion, the parties must file a joint or ex parte motion to lift the stay, or a joint or ex parte motion to continue the stay. After carefully considering the parties' competing interests under the Landis factors, which do not support a stay, the Court ultimately finds the efficient administration of justice and potential waste of judicial and party resources support a limited stay. All Plaintiffs similarly claim that BANA "failed to safeguard and properly manage benefits during the pandemic and unlawfully froze or denied access to funds in recipients’ debit card accounts." On January 14, 2021, Class Plaintiff Jennifer Yick commenced a purported class action titled Yick v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-376, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 4, 2021, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Yick class action and individually filed actions to this Court for consolidated pretrial proceedings and assigned it to District Judge Larry A. Burns. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oRLULw at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply 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 Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting leave to file under seal portions of the Bank's motion for leave to file sur-reply in response to new arguments raised in plaintiffs' class certification reply brief, and accompanying proposed sur-reply. The Bank's Motion and Sur-Reply contain information that the Bank has designated Confidential under the Protective Order entered in this case by Judge Spaeth. Counsel for the Bank met and conferred with Counsel for Plaintiffs on Sept. 14, 2024, to confirm that Plaintiffs do not oppose this application. Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, and online banking. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k4MC99 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Noah Levine, Esq. Matthew D. Benedetto, Esq. Benjamin Chapin, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich St. New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8875 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 E-mail: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com benjamin.chapin@wilmerhale.com BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks to Seal Corrected Docs in Unemployment Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the Defendant's motion to seal corrected documents (Exhibits 14-16 and 107) because compelling reasons support sealing of the identified documents or portions thereof. The Defendant has lodged a Proposed Order separately with the Court Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79.2(c), the Defendant submits this Notice and Motion to Seal Corrected Documents in response to Plaintiffs' Sept. 13, 2024 filing of Corrected Documents in support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wC79If at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: James W. Mcgarry, Esq. Thomas M. Hefferon, Esq. Sabrina M. Rose-smith, Esq. Matthew L. Riffee, Esq. Laura G. Brys, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 570-1000 Facsimile: (617) 523-1231 E-mail: JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com THefferon@goodwinlaw.com SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com LBrys@goodwinlaw.com - and - Yvonne W. Chan, Esq. JONES DAY 100 High Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 960-3939 Facsimile: (617) 449-6999 E-mail: YChan@jonesday.com - and - Janice P. Brown, Esq. Matthew B. Nazareth, Esq. MEYERS NAVE 600 B Street, Suite 1650 San Diego, CA 92101 E-mail: jbrown@myersnave.com mnazareth@myersnave.com BARNANA PBC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Edery Herrera, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. BARNANA, PBC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07099 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 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://barnana.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. BARNANA, PBC, operates the Barnana online retail store, as well as the Barnana 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 BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: McCoy Suit Removed to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jacob McCoy, individually and for others similarly situated v. BARNARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2024CV030571 was removed from the District Court for Larimer County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on Sept. 19, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02575. In the State Court Complaint, Plaintiff asserts four purported claims for relief: a claim for alleged failure to pay overtime wages under the Colorado Wage Claim Act (the "CWCA") and Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Orders (the "COMPS Orders"); a claim for alleged failure to pay minimum wages under the Colorado Minimum Wage Act (the "CMWA") and COMPS Orders; a claim for alleged failure to pay earned wages under the CWCA and COMPS Orders; and a claim for alleged civil theft of wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Phone: (970) 214-0562 Email: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com - and - Michal A. Joseph, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 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 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey H. McClelland, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4000 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 861-7760 Email: Jeffrey.McClelland@lewisbrisbois.com BAUSCH & LOMB: Raskin Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------- The case styled VALERIE RASKIN, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAUSCH & LOMB, INC. and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-24-614787, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 12, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-06442 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Bausch & Lomb violated California's Business & Professions Code by allegedly failing to warn consumers of the potential risks associated with the consumption of PreserVision AREDS 2 nutritional supplement. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. is an American-Canadian eye health products company based in Vaughan, Ontario.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alicia J. Donahue, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: adonahue@shb.com BAYER CORP: Can Redact Portions of Class Cert Opposition Brief -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Newman v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 7:22-cv-07087-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order permitting the Defendants to redact the following, viewable only by Selected Parties: 1. Portions of Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Class Certification and portions of Exhibit D containing excerpts from the Deposition of Amanda McCarthy, Defendants' 30(b)(6) witness. 2. Portions of Defendants' Brief referring to certain segments of Plaintiff's Exhibits 8 and 11 to the Declaration of Max S. Roberts and portions of Exhibit K to Defendants' Brief referring to certain segments of Exhibit 11 to the Declaration of Max S. Roberts. 3. Portions of Exhibit H containing Defendants' Counsel's home address. Bayer Corporation is the American subsidiary of Bayer AG. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sN4P80 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan F. Cohn, Esq. LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP 200 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 E-mail: jon@lkcfirm. com BAYER HEALTHCARE: Drake Wins Class Status Bid --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONIECE DRAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01085-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael Anello entered an order: -- granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, -- denying the parties' motions for sanctions, and -- granting the pending motions to seal, Doc. Nos. 87, 94, 102, and 108. Accordingly, it is ordered that Document Numbers 88–89, 95, 103, and 109 shall remain under seal as proposed documents. As stated in U.S. Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt's Nov. 1, 2023 Order, Doc. No. 81, the parties are ordered to contact Judge Burkhardt's chambers no later than Sept. 19, 2024 to request another Case Management Conference. The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs have met all the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), as well as Rule 23(a). The Court finds that compelling reasons have been shown to seal the business information of Circana Inc. and Defendant, as well as the Plaintiffs' personal information. Therefore, the Court grants the parties' motions to seal. The case involves Defendant's popular "One A Day" ("OAD") line of multivitamins. Specifically, Plaintiffs' SAC concerns Defendant's OAD Natural Fruit Bites Multivitamin products, including the following "four varieties: Men's, Women's, Men's 50+, and Women's 50+." The Plaintiffs allege Defendant's "advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading" because it holds its Products out as "natural" even though they "contain non-natural, synthetic ingredients.' The classes that Plaintiffs seek to certify are defined as follows in the instant motion: California Class. "All persons who purchased at least one of the following Products in the State of California from March 1, 2020, to May 30, 2023: - One-A-Day Natural Fruit Bites Women's - One-A-Day Natural Fruit Bites Men's - One-A-Day Natural Fruit Bites Women's 50+ - One-A-Day Natural Fruit Bites Men's 50+" New York Class "All persons who purchased at least one of the following Products in the State of New York from May 31, 2020, to May 30, 2023: -- One-A-Day Natural Fruit Bites Women's -- One-A-Day Natural Fruit Bites Men’s -- One-A-Day Natural Fruit Bites Women’s 50+ -- One-A-Day Natural Fruit Bites Men’s 50+ Drake purchased the Products in 2020 in retail outlets in Queens, New York, where she is a resident. Bayer discovers and manufactures healthcare and medical products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VuXSmV at no extra charge.[CC] BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Suarez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALVIN SUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Belkin International, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-07031 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Belkin International provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.belkin.com, the suit alleges. On Aug. 9, 2024, the Plaintiff, who enjoys outdoor activities and frequently goes hiking, needed a power bank for his mobile device because the battery often depletes during long journeys. He searched the internet for "Power bank order online" and found the Defendant's site, Belkin.com. While attempting to review the company's products and make a purchase, he encountered numerous accessibility errors that presented the site as being inaccessible for users who rely on screen reader software. Consequently, he was unable to complete the purchase and efficiently navigate the site. The lawsuit says that the Defendant utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Belkin International's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Suarez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Belkin International is an American consumer electronics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com BERTIE MANAGEMENT: Feltzin Sues Over Denial of Access to Property ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. BERTIE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 9:24-cv-81148-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 18, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and businesses located therein. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and requires landlords and tenants to be liable for compliance. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located within the commercial property, to include a visit to the Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property in September 3, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property. He often visits the Commercial Property in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and because it is approximately 36 miles from his residence and is near other businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron. He plans to return to the Commercial Property within 2 months of the filing of this Complaint, in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered at the place of public accommodation and check if it has been remediated of the ADA violations he encountered. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the business named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and business named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. BERTIE MANAGEMENT, LLC, owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com BG RETAIL LLC: Carr Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mary Carr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BG RETAIL, LLC and CALERES, INC., Case No. 2484CV02060 was removed from the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Sept. 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-12387. The Plaintiff filed a purported class action complaint setting forth a single claim for violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Privacy in Commercial Transactions Act (the "CPICTA"). The Plaintiff alleges that she visited Famous Footwear's website, operated by defendants, in or around September 2023. Plaintiff's Complaint. She claims that, during the checkout process and while completing her credit card purchase, she was required to provide personal identification information (PII)--specifically, her email address--which was not required by the credit card issuer to complete the transaction. In doing so, she alleges that defendants violated the CPICTA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Skroback, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6022 Phone: (212) 408-5540 Facsimile: (212) 318-3400 Email: andrew.skroback@nortonrosefulbright.com BOCKMON & WOODY: Hardin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bockmon & Woody electric CO., Inc. The case is styled as Wayne Hardin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bockmon & Woody electric CO., Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0011996 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 18, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Bockmon & Woody Electric Co. -- https://www.bockmonwoody.com/ -- has a highly trained staff of IBEW Electricians, Operating Engineers, Laborers, and Management staff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com BREWERS HILL REALTY: Moss Sues Over Rooftop Pool Collapse --------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Moss and Helen Mohan, for themselves and those similarly situated v. BREWERS HILL REALTY, LLC, EXCELSIOR COMMUNITIES, WOOD PARTNERS, JDAVIS ARCHITECTS, Case No. 1:24-cv-02722-BAH (D. Md., Sept. 20, 2024), is brought to recover damages they suffered as the result of a rooftop pool collapse. Axel Brewers Hill is a relatively a new apartment complex in the Brewers Hill Community that offered "inspired and spirited living." On September 20, 2024, the building was evacuated after the rooftop pool collapsed, compromising the integrity of the building. The Defendants owes a duty to all prospective Class members to provide safe and otherwise habitable living conditions at Axel Brewers Hill. The Defendants breached this duty by, among other things, failing to adequately inspect the premises, failing to adequately maintain and repair the premises, including the structural integrity of the building, and failing to adequately maintain and repair the pool. The Defendants breached their duty despite actual knowledge that doing so would endanger the property and physical safety of the Atla Brewers Hill residents, including all Class members. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence by the Defendants, the prospective Class members have suffered damages, including dislocation, loss of use and enjoyment, and other economic damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are residents at Axel Brewers Hill at 1211 S. Eaton Street, Baltimore, MD. Brewers Hill Realty is the current owner of the building at 1211 S. Eaton Steet.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas W. Keilty, III, Esq. Nicholas C. Bonadio, Esq. KEILTY BONADIO, LLC One South Street – Suite 2125 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 410-469-9953 Email: tkeilty@kblitigation.com nbonadio@kblitigation.com - and - Kevin P. Sullivan, Esq. Benjamin S. Salsbury, Esq. SALSBURY SULLIVAN, LLC 100 N. Charles Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: 443-869-3920 Email: ksullivan@salsburysullivanlaw.com bsalsbury@salsburysullivanlaw.com - and - Alexandra M. Walsh, Esq. Patrick Huyett, Esq. ANAPOL WEISS One Logan Square 130 N. 18th St., Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (202) 780-3014 Facsimile: (215) 735-2211 Email: awalsh@anapolweiss.com phuyett@anapolweiss.com BROOKLYN BEDDING: Conclusion of Fact Discovery Due Dec. 4 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03781-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting stipulation and joint request for order regarding class certification briefing schedules pursuant to (L.R. 6- 1(A) & L.R. 6-2): The deadline for the parties to conclude fact discovery on issues related to class certification is Dec. 4, 2024; The deadline for the parties to serve expert disclosures and discovery on issues related to class certification shall be extended from Dec. 4, 2024 to coincide with class certification briefing dates below, with the deadline for each Party to serve its expert disclosures to coincide with the deadline for the filing of their respective brief, and the close of expert discovery on issues related to class certification to be extended until briefing is complete; The Plaintiff Sean Phillips' Motion will be filed no later than: Dec. 18, 2024; The Defendant Brooklyn Bedding's Opposition will be filed no later than Feb. 12, 2025; The Plaintiff Sean Phillips' Reply will be filed no later than March 5, 2025. Brooklyn Bedding is an American made manufacturer of mattresses. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JWPLYJ at no extra charge.[CC] BUILDTECH CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Trujillo Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE TRUJILLO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated workers v. BUILDTECH CONSTRUCTION, LLC, BUILDTECH CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER SUBER, Case No. 4:24-cv-03479 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 17, 2024) contends that the Defendants misclassify construction workers as independent contractors, require these employees to work more than 40 hours per week, and refuse to pay overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. During Mr. Trujillo's employment with Buildtech, he frequently worked seven days a week from 12 to 16 hours per day, sometimes working 80 to 90 hours per week, as did the Similarly Situated Workers, the suit says. Buildtech and Mr. Suber were aware that Mr. Trujillo and similarly situated workers worked more than 40 hours per week because they reported the hours and was paid an hourly rate. However, the Defendants allegedly did not pay Mr. Trujillo or any of the Similarly Situated Workers time-and-a-half for any of the overtime hours that they worked for Buildtech and Mr. Suber. Accordingly, the Defendants' underpayment of the Plaintiff and his co-workers, often referred to as "wage theft," allowed the Defendants to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace as compared to other construction companies that pay their employees all of the money required by law. Mr. Trujillo was hired by the Defendant on July 14, 2023 to serve as a master framer and foreman. Buildtech employed Mr. Trujillo to frame houses and other structures, placing and installing drywall, and other similar construction duties. Buildtech does construction in Texas and surrounding states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq. Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com BYTEDANCE INC: Collects Children's Personal Info, Villanueva Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JODY VILLANUEVA, on behalf of J.C.; ANGELA FAUCETT, on behalf of K.F.; and LAMARTINE PIERRE, JR., on behalf of C.P. v. BYTEDANCE INC.; BYTEDANCE LTD.; TIKTOK LTD.; TIKTOK INC.; TIKTOK PTE. LTD.; and TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-07922 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 17, 2024) contends that the Defendants engaged in "unlawful" business acts and/or practices by violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act Rule. According to the complaint, TikTok violated Sections 312.3, 312.4, and 312.5 of COPPA, 16 C.F.R. sections 312.3-5, by collecting and using Personal Information from the Plaintiffs' minor children and Class Members (children younger than 13 years old) without notifying their parents and obtaining verifiable parental consent. As a direct and proximate result of Tiktok's unlawful and unfair business acts and practices, the Plaintiffs' minor children and Class Members suffered "benefit-of-the-bargain" injuries and damages. Further, the Plaintiffs' minor children and Class Members suffered "right to exclude" injuries and damages. The Plaintiffs seek to represent millions of American children whose personal information has been unlawfully collected and used by TikTok. The Plaintiffs also seek to hold TikTok accountable for their repeatedly violating the rights of American children and to ensure that TikTok's misconduct is finally stopped. Plaintiff Jody Villanueva and J.C. are citizens of the State of California. During the Class Period, J.C. created and used TikTok accounts (while under the age of 13) and viewed content on the TikTok platform. TikTok is a social media platform, widely known for its popularity with children and young adults.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Kafka, Esq. Karina Puttieva, Esq. Jenna Waldman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: ekafka@cohenmilstein.com kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com jwaldman@cohenmilstein.com - and - Paul Hoffman, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP 200 Pier Ave., Suite 226 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (424) 297-0114 Facsimile: (310) 399-7040 E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Sayah Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES SAYAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01199-CCC (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for enlargement of time to file his motion for class certification and order that the Plaintiff files his motion for class certification on a date to be determined by the Court. On July 24, 2024, the Plaintiff commenced this civil action by filing his Class Action Complaint with this Honorable Court. Pursuant to L.R. 23.3, as the Plaintiff filed his class action complaint in this matter on july 24, 2024, his motion for class certification is due to be filed on Oct. 22, 2024. The Defendant moved to extend the responsive pleading deadline to Sept. 2, 2024, which the Court subsequently granted. On Aug. 31, 2024, Defendant filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration Capstone is a provider of 3rd Party Logistics. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aPNyei at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - and - Shawn J. Wanta, Esq. Scott Moriarity, Esq. WANTA THOME PLC 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 252-3570 E-mail: sjwanta@wantathome.com samoriarity@wantathome.com CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Brown Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chrisanna Brown, individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY (d/b/a ATRIUM HEALTH), Case No. 3:24-cv-00848-FDW-SCR (W.D.N.C., Sept. 19, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, Driver's licenses, health and health insurance information, and financial data (collectively, the "Private Information") from cybercriminals. On September 13, 2024, Atrium announced that its patients' Private Information stored on its systems had been compromised by a phishing attack on several employee email accounts (the "Data Breach"). Atrium allegedly indicated that the information impacted by the Data Breach included "an individual's first and/or last name; middle initial; street address, email address and/or phone number(s); Social Security number; date of birth; medical record number; certain government or employer identifiers; driver's license or state-issued identification number; bank or financial account numbers or information, including routing numbers, financial institution name, or expiration date; treatment/diagnosis, provider name, prescription, health insurance or treatment cost information; patient identification number; health insurance account or policy number(s); incidental health references; billing identification numbers; access credentials; and/or digital signatures." Atrium has not reported the Data Breach to the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights ("HHS"), or any of the state agencies as of the filing of this complaint. Thus, despite discovering the Data Breach on or around April 2023, Atrium still has not disclosed the full scope of the Data Breach or the information impacted, or over four months after the fact. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and to follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI is now in the hands of cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their health privacy and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a patient of Atrium for several years. Atrium is a healthcare organization and hospital network offering a wide range of clinical services to patients across multiple states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 N Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Phone: (828) 258-2991 Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 833-4825 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Andrew R. Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: 404-282-4806 Email: atate@peifferwolf.com CHARTER FOODS: CMC in Fitch Class Action Set for Oct. 16 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER HANEY, JASON EVANS, MCKENNIA FITCH, DAVID KNIGHTEN, and CHRISTIE STINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHARTER FOODS NORTH, LLC and CHARTER FOODS, INC. Case No. 2:23-cv-00069 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis McDonough entered an order vacating all dates associated with a motion for class certification. -- A case management conference is hereby set for Oct. 16, 2024, at 2:00pm. Dial-in instructions will be circulated via email in advance of the conference. Before the Court is the Parties' joint stipulated request to vacate all dates associated with a motion for class certification and schedule a case management conference to set new deadlines and update the Court on the case status. Charter Foods is a food service company, specializing in providing a range of culinary solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4R8YuB at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER FOODS: CMC in Haney Class Action Set for Oct. 16 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER HANEY, JASON EVANS, MCKENNIA FITCH, DAVID KNIGHTEN, and CHRISTIE STINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHARTER FOODS NORTH, LLC and CHARTER FOODS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00046 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis McDonough entered an order vacating all dates associated with a motion for class certification. -- A case management conference is hereby set for Oct. 16, 2024, at 2:00pm. Dial-in instructions will be circulated via email in advance of the conference. Before the Court is the Parties' joint stipulated request to vacate all dates associated with a motion for class certification and schedule a case management conference to set new deadlines and update the Court on the case status. Charter Foods is a food service company, specializing in providing a range of culinary solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DV1XMF at no extra charge.[CC] CHRIS BRUN: Petition for Leave to Appoint Class Counsel Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COREY TAYLOR No. 534419, et al., v. CHRIS BRUN, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00082 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. entered an order denying: -- "Petition for Leave to Proceed as a Class Without Prepayment of Filing Fees," -- "Petition for Leave to Assign and Appoint Class Counsel or Class Administrator," -- "Petition Seeking Class Action Certification to be Recognized as a Class Action Suit," and -- "Petition for Leave for this Court to Allow Other Plantiff's [sic] to Opt Into/be Added Unto this Matter as Soon as all Signatures Are Collected." The Plaintiff's other motions, "Petition for Urgent Protective Order/Injunction Order/Relief of Emergency Basis" and "Petition for Leave to Hold and Hear all Petitions and Hold an Emergency Hearing on Injunction Pursuant to the Unconstitutional Conditions" will be held in abeyance pending the resolution of the filing fee. Going forward, to be recognized as a co-plaintiff to this action, Mason, Lee, McCaleb, Franklin, Smith, and/or Sinclair must sign the complaint and return it to the Court within 30 days. Further, Taylor, Mason, Lee, McCaleb, Franklin, Smith, and/or Sinclair MUST comply with the Court's instructions regarding the filing fee within 30 days. The Court notes that Taylor's attempt to sign on behalf of other inmates, such as "All Plaintiff's [sic] attest and declare the same," is unsuccessful. All plaintiffs must sign a motion for the motion to pertain to them. Corey Taylor, an inmate of the Turney Center Industrial Complex in Only, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 on behalf of himself and other inmates regarding their conditions of confinement. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RPpAZj at no extra charge.[CC] CLEWS ENERGY SERVICES: Aragon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Aragon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEWS ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00341 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 19, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from CLEWS Energy Services, LLC ("CLEWS") under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the other workers like him were typically scheduled for at least 12-hour shifts, 7 days a week, and they routinely worked several weeks without time off. The Plaintiff and the other workers like him often worked even more than that, but they were not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant improperly classified these workers as independent contractors and paid them a single day rate for all hours worked each day. This collective and class action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages the Defendant owes these workers under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from November 2022 until June 2023 as a flowback operator. CLEWS ENERGY SERVICES, LLC provides oilfield support services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Scott Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 999-5200 Email: matt@parmet.law COMMUNITY MINERALS II: Bagley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Minerals II, LLC. The case is styled as Gretchen Bagley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Minerals II, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01603 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 19, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Community Minerals -- https://www.communityminerals.com/ -- specializes in the purchase of mineral or royalty rights all over the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Brian T. Giles, Esq. GILES & HARPER-CINCINNATI 7247 Beechmont Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45230 Phone: (513) 379-2715 Email: bgiles@gilesharper.com COTTAGES WI: Fails to Pay Med Passers' OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- MIKAYLA TESSMER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COTTAGES WI, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01183-WCG (E.D. Wis., Sept. 17, 2024) seeks unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid agreed upon wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from the Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, the Plaintiff contends. On April 29, 2024, the Defendant hired the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Med Passer working in the State of Wisconsin. On Aug 29, 2024, the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant ended. Cottages owns, operates, and manages senior living and memory care facilities and locations in the State of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com CREWS CONTROL: Conditional Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT STEVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREWS CONTROL, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01863-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn Horan entered an order extending the case management deadlines as follows: -- Phase 1 of Class Discovery deadline is Dec. 2, 2024 -- Stipulation Selecting ADR Process due Dec. 2, 2024 -- Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification is due Dec. 30, 2024 -- Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification is due Jan. 20, 2025 The Court will schedule the Post-Discovery Status Conference and set remaining deadlines after its disposition on Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Class Certification. Crews Control is a traffic control partner operating in Central and Western PA, Eastern and Central OH & Northern WV. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PcIDIk at no extra charge.[CC] DILLON COMPANIES: Ebersole Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kacey Ebersole, individually and on behalf all similarly situated persons v. DILLON COMPANIES, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00845 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Sept. 20, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00521-SJD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Dillons -- http://www.dillons.com/-- is a regional grocery supermarket chain based in Hutchinson, Kansas, and is a division of Kroger.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Neville Hood, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE AND HOOD LAW OFFICE, PLLC Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (802) 578-5682 Email: alex@towardsjustice.org The Defendant is represented by: George L. Stevens, III, Esq. Robert A Harris, Esq. VORYS SAYER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP P.O. Box 1008 52 East Gay Street Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Phone: (614) 464-6328 Email: glstevens@vorys.com raharris@vorys.com - and - Joseph Edward Okon, Esq. Jacob Maxwell Rubinstein, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 707 17th Street, Suite 3100 Denver, CO 80202-3400 Phone: (720) 479-3900 Email: jokon@cozen.com jrubinstein@cozen.com DOCTOR HAAS: Hunter Files Suit in D. South Dakota ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doctor Haas. The case is styled as Michael Hunter, and all others similarly situated v. Doctor Haas, Avera, Samford Health Case No. 4:24-cv-04170-CCT (D.S.D., Sept. 18, 2024). The nature of suit is stated Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus & Other for Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The United States Marshals Service -- https://www.usmarshals.gov/ -- is a federal law enforcement agency in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. DREAM GAMES: Vollmuth Hits Addictive Gambling In-Game Features -------------------------------------------------------------- LORNA VOLLMUTH AND STEPHANIE STRONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DREAM GAMES TEKNOLOJI ANONIM ŞIRKETI, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-07763-SPG-AGR (C.D. Cal., Sept. 11, 2024) is a class action for the unlawful, deceptive, and misleading trade practices (dark patterns and addictive gambling in-game features such as "loot boxes") engaged in by Defendant in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. One of Defendant's most popular games is Royal Match, which is considered one of the largest "match-3 puzzle" games in the market and touts more than fourteen million active players. Royal Match goes beyond the "social casino" category by promoting and profiting from prohibited gambling activity through the "Card Collection" feature. According to the complaint, the Card Packs and other in-game Lootboxes were advertised in game as possibly containing valuable unlockable prizes that allowed players to upgrade and/or advance their playing advantage. Players such as Plaintiffs were not told in advance what was inside any particular Card Pack, Lootbox, or the odds of winning something which may be contained in the Card Pack or Lootbox, and thereby were functionally gambling on the chance of hopefully winning some valuable prize. The Defendant's unfair, deceptive, and unlawful acts or practices of allowing players to pay real-world currency to gamble on winning in-game items, implemented in conjunction with undisclosed "dark patterns" that steered players towards making such purchases and making it particularly difficult to advance in the game otherwise, as well as refusing to provide refunds to users who made in-game purchases, have through such omissions deceived, misled, and harmed consumers who comprise a large segment of Defendant's player population, says the suit. Dream Games Teknoloji is a mobile gaming company with offices in Istanbul, Turkey and London, England.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4733 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com - and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com ECOLAB PRODUCTION: Perez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SILVERIO PEREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ECOLAB PRODUCTION LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVSB222765, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on September 12, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01954 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint pleads causes of action for: (1) failure to pay overtime and double time wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (5) failure to timely pay all wages due at separation; and (6) unfair competition. The Plaintiff seeks recovery of damages, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, including, among other things, all wages, overtime and double wages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, statutory and civil penalties, expenses, injunctive and declaratory relief. Ecolab Production LLC offers water, hygiene and infection prevention solutions and services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shareef S. Farag, Esq. Nicholas D. Poper, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: sfarag@bakerlaw.com npoper@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com EXABEAM INC: Mihovilovic Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exabeam, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Domingo Mihovilovic, Nadav Lavy, Rajiv Taneja, Uri Ben-Dor, and others similarly situated v. Exabeam, Inc., Acrew DCF Exabeam Aggregator, L.P.; Acrew DCF Exabeam SPV, L.P.; Acrew Diversify Capital Fund, L.P.; Adam Geller; Aspect Ventures I-A, L.P.; Aspect Ventures II, L.P.; Aspect Ventures II-A, L.P.; Aspect Ventures, LP; Blue Owl Opportunistic Lending DL (C) LP; Blue Owl Opportunistic Lending I (H) LP; Blue Owl Opportunistic Lending Master Fund II LP; Blue Owl Technology Finance Corp.; Icon Ventures V, L.P.; Jeb Miller; Lightspeed Strategic Partners, I, L.P.; Lightspeed Venture Partners Select II, L.P.; Lightspeed Venture Partners Select III, L.P.; LSVP XB-F, LLC; Mark Jensen; Matthew Howard; Nir Polak; Norwest Venture Partners XII, L.P.; Pravin Vazirani; Ravi Mhatre; Theresia Gouw; XA SPV, LLC, Case No. 2024-0976 (Del. Chancery Ct., Sept. 19, 2024). The case type is stated as "Civil Action." Exabeam -- https://www.exabeam.com/ -- is a global cybersecurity company headquartered in Foster City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Quinn, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC-WILMINGTON 112 French St Ste 201 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 438-3436 Email: christopher.quinn@ksfcounsel.com FAVORITE WORLD: Minor Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIDA MINOR and ASHA AYANNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FAVORITE WORLD, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04425-JFW-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order -- condensing the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion to modify the scheduling order, or in the alternative, -- simply granting Plaintiffs a 60-day extension of time to file their motion for class certification mooting the motion to modify the scheduling order. If Plaintiffs' motion to modify the scheduling order is not heard until Oct. 21, 2024, then the Parties will be required to complete briefing of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and potentially even Defendant's Opposition, before the motion to modify the scheduling order may be heard. If the Plaintiffs' Motion to modify the scheduling order is granted, then the Parties will have unnecessarily rushed to brief the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without the benefit of foundational information, and the Plaintiffs will be in a position of having to resubmit the motion for class certification after receiving the necessary discovery. Accordingly, the Parties have not resolved pending discovery disputes despite Plaintiffs’ counsel’s diligence and if an extension is not granted then Plaintiffs will be required to file their Motion for Class Certification with the limited discovery produced by Defendant. If Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied because of the lack of an evidentiary record, then Plaintiffs will request that the Court grant Plaintiffs leave to file a renewed Motion. Indeed, Judge Richlin noted that Defendant’s failure to provide fulsome discovery in a timely manner could open the door for a second motion for class certification to be filed. On Sept. 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Motion and Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order which is set to be heard on Oct. 21, 2024. On Sept. 13, 2024, the Parties took part in an informal discovery conference with Magistrate Judge Richlin. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wcEfUe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon Brouillette, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-763 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com FCA US: Oldson Suit Seeks to Modify Class Certification Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY OLSON, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-00360-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Nov. 14, 2024, will bring this motion to modify the class certification order to: (1) to substitute a new named Plaintiff and appoint the new named Plaintiff as Class Representative for the certified Class and Subclass; and (2) remove from the Class Definition all Class Vehicles manufactured before Jan. 1, 2015. The parties' meet and confer efforts have been exhausted on these two matters. On Sept. 13, 2024, Class Counsel spoke with counsel for FCA by phone to ask if FCA would stipulate to the requested relief. Counsel for FCA declined. On March 5, 2024, the Plaintiff here filed a motion to modify the class definition and substitute the Class Representative with a new representative, Jeffrey Olson, and requested that a Third Amended Complaint be filed on Mr. Olson's behalf. The proposed modified Class would include: "All persons in California who currently own or lease, or who have owned or leased, any Class Vehicle manufactured by Chrysler or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates that is equipped with an Automatic Head Restraint ("AHR") system." FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UoDMd2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart C. Talley, Esq. Ian J. Barlow, Esq. KERSHAW TALLEY BARLOW PC 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 779-7000 Facsimile: (916) 721-2501 E-mail: stuart@ktblegal.com ian@ktblegal.com - and - Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq. Christopher E. Coleman, Esq. Amelia A. Haselkorn, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 Second Avenue South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com kbyrd@lchb.com akaufman@lchb.com ccoleman@lchb.com ahaselkorn@lchb.com GEICO CASUALTY: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Perkins Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint and denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss class action complaint and motion to compel appraisal and stay proceedings in the lawsuit entitled Deeba Perkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GEICO Casualty Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00736, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, is brought against the Defendants for alleged breach of insurance contract. On Apr. 30, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the Plaintiff opposed on July 1, 2024. On July 2, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend complaint. On July 10, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel appraisal and stay proceedings. On Aug. 16, 2024, the Court entered a minute order denying without prejudice the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint ; the granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint; and denying the Defendants' Motion to Compel Appraisal and Stay Proceedings. On Aug. 26, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On Aug. 30, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The appellate case is captioned Deeba Perkins v. GEICO Casualty Company, et al., Case No. 24-3808, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on September 16, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee DEEBA PERKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN 60 S. Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Defendants-Appellants GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Dan W. Goldfine, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 285-5038 GENERAL MOTORS: Wins Summary Judgment v. White ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROY WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00410-CNS-MEH (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Charlotte Sweeney entered an order granting GM's motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff Roy White's remaining claims. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. The Court has determined that the Plaintiff's case would require the jury to answer technical issues outside the experience of ordinary persons. The Plaintiff White filed a Class Action Complaint against GM in February 2021, alleging that GM's Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines (Gen IV LC9 Engine) have an "inherent . . . excessive oil consumption problem," which Plaintiff calls the "Oil Consumption Defect." On Feb. 29, 2024, the Court issued its Federal Rule of Evidence 702 order concerning the Plaintiff's technical expert, Dr. Werner Dahm. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Go5Uk6 at no extra charge.[CC] GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Files Bid to Appeal Ruling in Trauernicht Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ GENWORTH FINANCIAL INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Peter Trauernicht, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Genworth Financial Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-REP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint alleges that Genworth breached its fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") by selecting, retaining, and otherwise ratifying poorly-performing investments for participants of the Genworth Financial Inc. Retirement and Savings Plan. On Feb. 20, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Robert E. Payne on Aug. 29, 2024. The Court held that the Defendant's evidence falls short of the threshold for summary judgment and a genuine dispute of material fact exists on the issue of loss causation. On Sept. 3, 2024, the Defendant filed a petition for permission to appeal the Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On Sept. 5, 2024, the Court ordered that further proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the petition for permission to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The appellate case is captioned Peter Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial Inc., Case No. 24-1880, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 13, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees PETER TRAUERNICHT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. Alec Berin, Esq. John Claude Roberts, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 (866) 540-5505 - and - Glenn Edward Chappell, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 - and - James Edward Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Defendant-Appellant GENWORTH FINANCIAL INCORPORATED is represented by: Brian Emory Pumphrey, Esq. Heidi Elizabeth Siegmund, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-7745 (804) 775-1049 - and - Eugene Scalia, Esq. Max Elias Schulman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8206 (202) 777-9550 GERBER PRODUCTS: Velasco Balks at Website's Illegal Data Gathering ------------------------------------------------------------------ VIANCA VELASCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Michigan company; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07758 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 11, 2024) alleges that Defendant has installed on its website https://www.gerber.com/ a software created by TikTok in order to identify website visitors in violation of the California Penal Code. According to the complaint, the TikTok Software acts via a process known as "fingerprinting." The TikTok Software collects as much data as it can about an otherwise anonymous visitor to the Website and matches it with existing data TikTok has acquired and accumulated about hundreds of millions of Americans. The TikTok Software gathers device and browser information, geographic information, referral tracking, and url tracking by running code or "scripts" on the Website to send user details to TikTok. However, the Defendant did not obtain Class Members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization, says the suit. Gerber Products Company is a Michigan-based purveyor of baby food and baby products that owns, operates, and/or controls the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Matthew J. Smith, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com matthew@taulersmith.com GKN DRIVELINE: Ayers Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES AYERS, DOYLE CAWTHON, JR., DEUAL STARR, and DARRON GRAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC. Case No. 1:23-CV-00581-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order -- granting as uncontested Plaintiffs' separate motions for conditional collective certification pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act in and class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), or, in the alternative, and -- granting the proposed orders submitted with the motions. GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9zwzAa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Hannah B. Simmons, Esq. Matthew Marlowe, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul DeCamp, Esq. Adriana S. Kosovych, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1227 25th St., N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 861-1819 Facsimile: (202) 296-2882 E-mail: PDeCamp@ebglaw.com AKosovych@ebglaw.com - and - Kevin S. Joyner, Esq. Vanessa N. Garrido, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 8529 Six Forks Road, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 787-9700 Facsimile: (919) 783-9412 E-mail: Kevin.joyner@ogletree.com Vanessa.garrido@ogletree.com GOOGLE LLC: Intercepts Protected Personal Info, M.D. Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- M.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC and META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-06369 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 10, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and invasion of privacy under California's Constitution. This is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all patients who accessed and used the website, www.bluechew.com, to purchase prescription medication. Dermacare, LLC d/b/a BlueChew provides "a technology platform which enables registered users to connect with physicians and other health care providers for the diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction." The website offers patients convenient and discrete access to prescription medications for the treatment of this medical condition. Information concerning an individual's healthcare and prescription medication is protected by state and federal law. Despite these protections, and unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, this sensitive, personal information communicated through the website was intercepted by some of the largest advertising and social media companies in the country, including Facebook and Google. The Defendants intercepted this protected information through tracking technology embedded on the Website, including software development kits and tracking pixels, says the suit. The Defendants' interception of this information without explicit consent constitutes an extreme invasion of Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy. The Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illegal actions, the suit alleges. Google LLC is an American multinational corporation and technology company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA: Lewis Balks at Deceptive Utility Admin Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE LEWIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC., dba GREYSTAR, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01619-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 10, 2024) is a proposed class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendant arising from its deceptive and unfairly disclosed junk "Utility Admin Fee" assessed on Plaintiff and similarly situated tenants. According to the complaint, Greystar assesses each month a small "Utility Admin Fee" of $1-$5 in hopes that it will go unnoticed and uncontested by tenants who have already invested substantial time and resources into the moving process. Greystar's junk fees do not provide tenants with any special benefits or services beyond ordinary costs of doing business that Greystar is required to bear as a landlord. In other words, these junk fees serve no legitimate purpose but to increase Greystar's profits and inflate its bottom line. By hiding the misnamed and deceptive fee until tenants have no choice but to pay it, the Defendant has raked in millions of dollars in Utility Admin Fees at the expense of its tenants, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's unfair and deceptive conduct, the Plaintiff and the proposed class have suffered damages. They paid these fees only as a result of Defendant's deceptive bait and switch scheme, the suit asserts. Greystar California, Inc., dba Greystar, is a property management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com HOMEADVISOR INC: Wins Summary Judgment vs Airquip ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Airquip, Inc. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc et al. (HOMEADVISOR, INC. LITIGATION), Case No. 1:16-cv-01849-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip Brimmer entered an order: -- granting HomeAdvisor, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment; -- dismissing with prejudice Count XLIX, Count L, Count LI, Count LII, Count LIII, Count LIV, Count LV, Count LVI; and -- denying the Misappropriation Classes' motion for summary judgment. Because plaintiffs have failed to identify any injury from the four statements, the Court finds that HomeAdvisor is entitled to summary judgment on the Lanham Act false advertising claim. Because plaintiffs have failed to establish an inference that members of the Idaho Misappropriation Class suffered an "ascertainable loss of money or property," HomeAdvisor is entitled to summary judgment on the ICPA claim. The Court therefore grants this portion of HomeAdvisor's motion and dismisses with prejudice the ICPA claim of the Idaho Misappropriation Class. The Plaintiffs assert that the following statements constitute false advertising under the Lanham Act: (A) "Let's find you the best HomeAdvisor screened and approved professionals" and "Find Other Pros;" (B) "Please Note: This business is not a screened and approved member of HomeAdvisor;" and (C) "[SP business name] does not provide service to [zip code]." On Jan. 10, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On Feb. 26, 2024, HomeAdvisor filed a motion seeking summary judgment on the claims of the certified classes. HomeAdvisor is a digital marketplace that connects homeowners with local service professionals to carry out home improvement, maintenance, and remodeling projects.. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L5AdAC at no extra charge.[CC] HSNI LLC: Belin Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kyle Belin, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HSNI, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business as HOME SHOPPING NETWORK; DANIEL HODGE, an individual and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2424446 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01999. The Plaintiff alleges class action claims for violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, premiums, penalties, expense reimbursement, and restitution for himself and Putative Class Members due to Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods or authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to provide accurate and complete itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay wages during employment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy L. Hix, Esq. Hanna Jolkovsky, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: thix@seyfarth.com hjolkovsky@seyfarth.com - and - Bailey K. Bifoss, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: bbifoss@seyfarth.com HUMANIGEN INC: Class Settlement in Pieroni Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PIERONI v. HUMANIGEN, INC. et al. (HUMANIGEN, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 2:22-cv-05258-WJM-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge William Martini entered an order: -- granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to certify the Class and for final approval of the Class Action Settlement; -- granting Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and expenses; and -- granting Class Counsels' request for a service fee award of $7,500 per named plaintiff. In sum, the Settlement, which has no objectors, is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c), notice was adequate, and certification of the proposed Class is appropriate under Rules 23(a) and (b). The Plaintiffs allege that between May 16, 2020, and July 12, 2022, the Defendants made a series of false and/or materially misleading statements concerning the scientific bases underlying their efforts to develop their leading product candidate, lenzilumab, as a treatment for COVID. On Aug. 26, 2022, the Plaintiff Alejandro Pieroni filed a class action complaint against the Defendants Humanigen and Durrant, along with PIumanigen executive Timothy Morris, for violations of the Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and against Durrant and Morris for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On Nov. 8, 2023, this Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement. Humanigen is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, developing a portfolio of proprietary immuno-oncology and immunolomodulatory antibodies. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xK7xsj at no extra charge.[CC] INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Carrero Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled ELIZABETH QUIROGA CARRERO, an individual and class representative on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees, Plaintiff v. INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company; INTERSTATE HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00896, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on September 12, 2024. The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01077-JLT-EPG to the proceeding. The suit was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles before it was removed to the Central District of California on February 6, 2023. The Complaint asserts class action claims for: (1) failure to provide required meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to provide overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to timely pay wages; (6) failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; (7) failure to maintain required records; (8) failure to furnish accurate itemized statements; (9) failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; and (10) unfair and unlawful business practices. Interstate Management Company, LLC operates a restaurant. It was formerly known as Meristar Management Company, LLC.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Linda K. Claxton, Esq. Yeva Mikaelyan, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: linda.claxton@ogletree.com yeva.mikaelyan@ogletree.com JERICO PICTURES: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Underwood Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS UNDERWOOD, JESSICA PRESTON, HULOFTON ROBINSON, JESSICA AUSTIN, STEVEN CHECCHIA, JEANPAUL MAGALLANES, and DANA FOLEY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. JERICO PICTURES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC DATA, Case No. 1:24-cv-23585 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 17, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable, protected personally identifiable information, including the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' full names, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, mailing addresses and other personal information. The Plaintiff further sues the Defendant for failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII; unlawful disclosure of the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII; and failure to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their PII had been disclosed. On Aug. 15, 2024, the Defendant reported to regulators that in or around June 2024, the Defendant experienced a breach impacting its systems, where a third-party bad actor gained entry to the Defendant's computer networks and systems, accessed the PII and exfiltrated the information from those systems. The Defendant further stated that 1.3 million individuals were affected by the Data Breach in a breach notification published by the Office of the Maine Attorney General. As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class Members are at substantially increased risk of future identity theft, both currently and for the indefinite future, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and California Customer Records Act. Plaintiff Underwood is a citizen and resident of the State of Florida. On Sept. 12, 2024, he received an Experian IdentityWorks alert that his Social Security number was on the dark web. Plaintiff Robinson is a citizen and resident of the State of California. Following news of the NPD Data Breach, Plaintiff Robinson visited the website set-up for those affected by the NPD Data Breach and confirmed that his PII was compromised in the breach. While Plaintiff Robinson is not a customer of the Defendant, Defendant may have conducted a background check for a previous employer or his PII may have been scraped from non-public sources by the Defendant. Jerico is a corporation providing data-related services, including background checks for its clients.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq. SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON 1111 Lincoln Road, Suite 500 Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (786) 841-1181 E-mail: mclerkin@shnlegal.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Peter Demato, Esq. Anthony M. Christina LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com achristina@lowey.com - and - Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Johnathan Seredynski, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, Floor 15 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com jseredynski@sgtlaw.com JOHN HANCOCK: Filing for Class Status Bids Due Nov. 7, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZABEN, LLC, and WEINSTOCK PARTNERS LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK and JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.), Case No. 7:23-cv-08178-CS-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew Krause entered an order adopting the following First Amended Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order: 1. The case is to be tried to a jury. 2. Amended pleadings may not be filed absent agreement of the parties and/or leave of Court pursuant to the standards set forth in Rule 15. 3. First set of Interrogatories have been served by each party. The provisions of Local Civil Rule 33.3 shall apply to this case. 4. First requests for production of documents have been served by each party. Deadlines to respond to discovery requests served under Rule 33, 34, or 36 may be modified by agreement of the parties so long as they do not modify other Court-ordered deadlines. 5. This case has been referred to the Honorable Andrew E. Krause, United States Magistrate Judge, for general pretrial supervision. 6. Non-expert depositions shall be completed by Aug. 21, 2025. 7. Opening expert reports shall be served no later than Nov. 7, 2025. 8. Any motions for class certification shall be filed no later than Nov. 7, 2025. 9. Rebuttal expert reports shall be served no later than Dec. 23, 2025. 10. Any oppositions to motions for class certification shall be filed no later than Dec. 23, 2025. 11. Reply expert reports shall be served no later than Feb. 6, 2026. 12. Any letters requesting a pre-motion conference for a summary judgment motion shall be filed no later than April 15, 2026. John Hancock provides insurance products and financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x3v8ap at no extra charge.[CC] KRAFT HEINZ: Appeals Denied Bid to Stay Remand Order in Hortin Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to stay order remanding the lawsuit entitled Cori Hortin, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-909, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, is brought against the Defendants for alleged personal property violation. On May 30, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On July 1, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. On Aug. 5, 2024, the Court denied as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Todd W. Robinson. On Sept. 6, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand through an Order entered by Judge Robinson. On Sept. 9, 2024, the Defendant filed ex parte motion to remand/ex parte application to stay order granting motion to remand, which Judge Robinson denied on Sept. 17, 2024. The appellate case is captioned Hortin, et al. v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, LLC, Case No. 24-5641, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 17, 2024. [BN] KRG KINGS: Plaintiffs Awarded $433,150 in Attorneys' Fees --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARLENE MCDONNELL, v. KRG KINGS LLC, KELLY OPERATIONS GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01060-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for attorneys' fees: -- The Plaintiffs will be awarded $433,150.00 in attorneys' fees. Indeed, all of Plaintiffs' claims arose under the FLSA and PMWA, and both related to Plaintiffs' performance of side-work. Further, while Plaintiffs were unsuccessful as to their claims against Defendant Kelly Operations, evidence and testimony regarding Kelly Operations was relevant outside its impact on the joint employer analysis and was pertinent to Plaintiffs’ successful claims. None of the Johnson factors raised by KRG warrant reducing the lodestar calculation, and all other Johnson factors are either inapplicable or have been subsumed by the lodestar calculation. Therefore, the Court will award Plaintiffs $433,150.00 in attorneys’ fees. On Oct. 17, 2023, the jury returned a verdict that Defendant KRG Kings LLC violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by having its servers, Plaintiffs Darlene McDonnell and the 405 opt-in plaintiffs, perform side-work that was not related to serving customers. The jury awarded Plaintiffs unpaid wages of $250,000. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' renewed motion for attorneys' fees. KRG opposes the Motion. A copy of the Court's opinion dated July 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=82HZJ2 at no extra charge.[CC] MAPLEBEAR INC: Chambers Appeals Arbitration Order in FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH CHAMBERS is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Joseph Chambers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Maplebear, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-7114, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is filed against the Defendant for unpaid wages and unreimbursed expenses in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. On Nov. 3, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion compel arbitration, strike Plaintiff's class allegations, and stay the action, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke on Aug. 27, 2024. The Court ruled that the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED, and the action is STAYED. Judge Clarke directed the Plaintiff to submit the claims in the complaint to arbitration on an individual basis pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Order was also certified for interlocutory appeal. The appellate case is captioned Chambers v. Maplebear, Inc., Case No. 24-2415, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 13, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOSEPH CHAMBERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 MARYGOLD COS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Lucas Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Marygold Cos. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending June 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 18, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated Lucas class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 19, 2020, USCF LLC, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the "Lucas Class Action"). The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Lucas Class Complaint"). The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the 1933 Act, the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC. The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC. USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest such claims and have moved for their dismissal. Marygold Companies Inc. designs, markets, and supports unified messaging products. The Company's products integrate voice technology and software as a solution to the remote access needs of Internet electronic mail (e-mail), fax, and voice mail users. Marygold's software enables Internet e-mail users to have e-mail read to them over any telephone as instructed by voice command. [BN] MCMENAMINS INC: Wins Summary Judgment vs Leonard ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW LEONARD et al., v. MCMENAMINS INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00094-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court will enter judgment in Defendant's favor. Because this order resolves the case in full, the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the parties' pending motions in limine are denied as moot. The Defendant moves for summary judgment arguing the Plaintiffs have failed to put forth evidence sufficient to raise an issue of material fact on the required elements of their claims. The Court agrees. The Plaintiffs fail to identify evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether they have suffered any actionable harms caused by the breach. Several of Plaintiffs' claims fail for other reasons as well. On Jan. 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs sued McMenamins. On May 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the operative amended class action complaint. The Plaintiffs' claims seek two types of relief: "(1) retrospective damages resulting from the theft of their PII, and (2) prospective injunctive relief requiring McMenamins to strengthen its data security systems and procedures." The Plaintiffs are former McMenamins employees who were required to provide certain personally identifiable information ("PII") to McMenamins in connection with their employment. McMenamins "owns and operates a collection of restaurants, brew pubs, hotels, and entertainment venues throughout Oregon and Washington." A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sB7Rfr at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2873: Resolme Suit Alleges Toxic Chemical Exposure ------------------------------------------------------ BIENVENIDO RESOLME, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04963-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Navy. Throughout the duration of Plaintiff's military service, he ingested drinking water contaminated with Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, alleges the suit. The Resolme case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-0111 E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Roberson Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERVIN ROBERSON, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04972-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Army. Throughout the duration of Plaintiff's military service, he ingested drinking water contaminated with Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, alleges the suit. The Roberson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-0111 E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Rodriguez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04974-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Marine. Throughout the duration of Plaintiff's military service, he ingested drinking water contaminated with Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, alleges the suit. The Rodriguez case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-0111 E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Santiago Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS SANTIAGO, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04993-RMG (D.S.C., September 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Navy. Throughout the duration of Plaintiff's military service, he ingested drinking water contaminated with Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, alleges the suit. The Santiago case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-0111 E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com james@ferrarolaw.com MINNESOTA: Harpstead Appeals Denied Bill of Costs in Karsjens Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JODI HARPSTEAD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their Bill of Costs in the lawsuit entitled Kevin Scott Karsjens, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:11-cv-03659-DWF-TNL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the 1983 Civil Rights Act. On Mar. 24, 2022, the Defendants filed their Bill of Costs, to which the Plaintiffs objected to on Apr. 6, 2022. On Aug. 13, 2024, Judge Donovan W. Frank denied the Defendants' Bill of Costs, and sustained the Plaintiffs' objection. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs are indigent; they will likely not be able to pay these costs in the future; they have brought this action in good faith; the case raised issues of great public importance; the case has been vigorously litigated; the issues were difficult and close; and imposing fees could have a potential chilling effect on future litigants. The fair and equitable thing to do is for the Court to deny costs entirely in this case. For these reasons, the Court declined to award costs. "Defendants are not entitled to costs . . . the clerk shall enter the cost judgment accordingly," Judge Frank opined. The appellate case is captioned Kevin Scott Karsjens, et al. v. Jodi Harpstead, et al., Case No. 24-2876, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on September 16, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees KEVIN SCOTT KARSJENS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Anthony Stauber, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333−8844 Facsimile: (612) 339−6622 Email: tstauber@gustafsongluek.com dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com Defendants-Appellants JODI HARPSTEAD, et al. are represented by: Scott H. Ikeda, Esq. Aaron Winter, Esq. Brandon Boese, Esq. 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 757-1453 Facsimile: (651) 282-5832 Email: scott.ikeda@ag.state.mn.us aaron.winter@ag.state.mn.us brandon.boese@ag.state.mn.us NEW YORK: Bergnes Appeals 2nd Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA BERGNES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Linda Bergnes, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. New York State Unified Court System/Office of Court Administration, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-4298, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights violation. On Oct. 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Nov. 10, 2022. On June 28, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint through an Order entered by Judge Ronnie Abrams. On July 23, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Oct. 10, 2023. On Aug. 12, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint through an Order entered by Judge Abrams. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that the Defendants' practice constitutes intentional discrimination on the basis of national origin, and they offer no direct evidence or statistics that make other plausible non-discriminatory explanations very unlikely. The appellate case is captioned Bergnes v. New York State Unified Court System/Office of Court Administration, Case No. 24-2434, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 17, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LINDA BERGNES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Arthur Zachary Schwartz, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE Chartered Attorneys 225 Broadway, Suite 1902 New York, NY 10007 Defendants-Appellees NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, Office of Court Administration, et al. are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 NEW YORK: Plaintiffs Allowed to File Third Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK; REGINALD RIVERS, JR., by his Next Friend, Reginald Rivers, Sr.; SHARID FOOTMAN, by his Next Friend, Shaleema McCree; and KATARINA SCHOLZ, by her Next Friend, Paul Scholz, v. NEW YORK STATE; KATHLEEN HOCHUL in her official capacity as the Governor of New York State; THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVEOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; and WILLOW BAER, in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities, Case No. 1:17-cv-06965-FB-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order granting the motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The Plaintiffs' counsel shall revise the complaint to omit New York State, Hochul and Baer as defendants, and file it forthwith. The Office of People with Developmental Disabilities ("OPWDD") shall file an answer within 20 days thereafter. Magistrate Judge Henry will supervise whatever additional discovery is needed with regard to the new plaintiffs. Given the case's history, the Court asks that such discovery be handled on an expedited basis. Finally, the Court's disposition revives the motion for class certification. Following the completion of discovery, the parties shall advise the Court when the motion is meet for disposition. If supplemental briefing is required, they shall advise the Court of their agreed-upon briefing schedule. In sum, the technical niceties of the "nullity doctrine" do not preclude the Court from exercising its discretion to decide whether judicial efficiency would be better served by allowing plaintiffs with standing to join an existing lawsuit or requiring them to file a new one. The considerations that govern that discretion weigh in favor of leave to amend. In a normal case, the Court would no doubt grant such leave. New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York City and towering Niagara Falls. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j06Lz1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erin G. Mcguinness, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK 25 Chapel Street, Suite 1005 Brooklyn, NY 11201 The Defendants are represented by: James Mirro, Esq. STATE OF NEW YORK 28 Liberty Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10005 PAC HOUSE: Deadline to Complete Class Cert Discovery Extended ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIN HILLS, et al. v. PAC HOUSE GROUP, LLC, et al. Case No. 2:23-cv-05740-BWA-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Barry Ashe entered an order: -- granting the motions for extension to conduct written class certification discovery filed by 1) plaintiffs Alvin Hills, Donnell Matlock, Jack Martin, and Debra Jackson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and 2) defendants Richard Hamlet, MOF-Preservation of Affordability Corp., Ministry Outreach Foundation, MOF Parc-Fontaine, LLC, and PAC Housing Group, LLC, and -- extending the Sept. 13, 2024 deadline to complete written class certification discovery by 30 days to Oct. 13, 2024. PAC offers clients logistics consulting & subject matter expertise for mission-critical functions. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MB3YMo at no extra charge.[CC] PNC INVESTMENTS: Vallin Sues Over Unlawful Cash Sweep Program ------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL VALLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PNC INVESTMENTS, LLC; PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; and NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01295 (W.D. Pa., Sept. 11, 2024) is a class action suit against the Defendants arising from their unlawful actions and conduct regarding the cash sweep program they operate. According to the complaint, PNCI recommends to retail and advisory customers who have uninvested cash that they hold such monies in what is known as a "cash sweep account" where they can earn interest. PNCI's cash sweep account is known as the PNC Priority Bank Deposit Sweep Program and was created and developed by PNCI in conjunction with NFS. The Plaintiff and Class members are clients with PNCI whose uninvested cash was automatically swept into very low interest-bearing accounts with PNCI's affiliated bank, PNC Bank, pursuant to the PNC Sweep Program. At all relevant times, the Defendants had legal and/or contractual duties to act in the best interests of Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. The Defendants breached their legal and/or contractual duties to Plaintiff after they automatically enrolled Plaintiff and Class members in the PNC Sweep Program and offered them no other investment vehicles for their uninvested cash. The Defendants then caused Plaintiff's and Class members' uninvested cash to be deposited with PNC Bank, which pays low and unreasonable rates of return, but paid Defendants significant and higher fees at the expense of PNCI's customers. As a result, the Defendants generated massive revenues for themselves while paying PNCI customers a pittance, says the suit. PNC Investments, LLC is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and incorporated in Delaware. PNC Investments, LLC is a registered investment adviser and broker-dealer and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Connor P. Hayes, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com connorh@lcllp.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com rmr@classlawgroup.com rlm@classlawgroup.com - and - Brian E. Johnson, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 211 N. Union St., Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: bej@classlawgroup.com QUINSTREET INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Adjourned to Feb. 24, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXX LYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QUINSTREET, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-05056-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order adjourning remaining deadlines in the Case Management Order as follows: Deadline Date Motion for Class Certification: Feb. 24, 2025 Fact Discovery Cutoff: Dec. 12, 2024 Designation of Opening Experts with Reports: Jan. 9, 2025 Designation of Rebuttal Experts with Reports: Feb. 6, 2025 Expert Discovery Cutoff: Feb. 20, 2025 Completion of ADR: April 8, 2025 Filing of Dispositive Motion(s): April 8, 2025 Joint Pretrial Conference: June 17, 2025 Jury Trial (5 days): July 7, 2025 QuinStreet specializes in vertical marketing and media on the internet. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HG1kGj at no extra charge.[CC] RBS CITIZENS: Bid to Decertify PMWA Subclasses Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REINIG, et al., v. RBS CITIZENS, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-01541 (W.D. Pa., Filed Nov. 23, 2015), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order denying Citizens' motion decertifying the Court's Order certifying the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) Standard and Overtime Commission Subclasses. Citizens argues that the "prospect of one-way intervention now exists" because the Court certified the PMWA Subclasses and then subsequently granted Citizens' motion for summary judgment as to the PMWA claims. ECF No. 545. Citizens requests that the Court decertify the PMWA Subclasses, and then deny the motion for class certification as moot based on the grant of summary judgment in Citizens' favor. Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, arguing that Citizens consented to the procedural posture, that Citizens waived any argument based on the rule against one-way intervention when it moved for summary judgment, and that Citizens does not challenge Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs' satisfaction of the requirements for Rule 23 for class certification. In reviewing a motion to decertify a class, a court examines whether the plaintiff can no longer establish the requirements of either Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(b). The Court finds that decertification is not warranted. First, in light of the rule against one-way intervention and the complicated procedural history of this case, the Court expressly advised the parties in advance how it intended to proceed and required each party to file either a notice indicating that it did not object to the manner in which the Court intended to proceed, or an objection. The class decertification cases cited by Citizens involved either factual developments in the case or a change in the applicable law. No such circumstances are present here. Lastly, Citizens' contention that the Court's decision on class certification creates a one-way intervention issue is meritless. The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] RICHLAND COUNTY, SC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.C., J.H., and H.M. on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; Disability Rights South Carolina, v. Richland County, Case No. 8:22-cv-01358-MGL-BM (D.S.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file a response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by 14 days such that the new deadline would be Oct. 3, 2024. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Sept. 5, 2024. The current deadline for the Defendant to file a response to that motion is Sept. 19, 2024. Richland County is a county located in the U.S. state of South Carolina. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xBli9O at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart Andrews, Esq. Nekki Shutt, Esq. D. Ashley Pennington, Esq. Sarah J.M. Cox, Esq. Annie Day Bame, Esq. BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA Post Office Box 1929 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 904-7915 Facsimile: (803) 904-7910 E-mail: sandrews@burnetteshutt.law nshutt@burnetteshutt.law apennington@burnetteshutt.law scox@burnetteshutt.law abame@burnetteshutt.law The Defendant is represented by: John T. Lay, Jr., Esq. A. Johnston Cox, Esq. Lindsay A. Joyner, Esq. J. Clayton Mitchell, III, Esq. Eleanor L. Jones, Esq. GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, PA 1201 Main Street, Suite 1200 (29201) Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 779-1833 E-mail: jlay@gwblawfirm.com jcox@gwblawfirm.com ljoyner@gwblawfirm.com cmitchell@gwblawfirm.com ejones@gwblawfirm.com - and - Andrew F. Lindemann, Esq. LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, P.A. Columbia, SC 29260 E-mail: andrew@ldlawsc.com ROBERT HALF: Bid to Decertify Class in Magallon Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BONNIE MAGALLON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 6:13-cv-01478-SI (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael Simon entered an order denying Defendant's motion to decertify class. Regarding RHI's assertion in its reply brief and at oral argument that some class members may have immediately been deemed "not placeable" based on obviously disqualifying events like major felonies, RHI offers no evidence of any class member who falls within this category. It may be that a few outlier putative class members do not satisfy the class definition. RHI may present this evidence to the jury, and such persons may be excluded from the class, either by the jury or the Court in post-trial motions. But hypothesizing that some persons on the class list may fall outside the class definition is insufficient to defeat predominance, which "tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation." Individualized questions therefore do not predominate. The class representative Bonnie Magallon alleges that Robert Half International, Inc. (RHI) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The current definition of the class and class period is: "All natural persons residing in the United States (including territories and other political subdivisions) who: (i) applied for temporary employment placement through RHI; (ii) about whom RHI obtained a consumer report for employment purposes from General Information Services, Inc. between October 1, 2010, and November 30, 2017; (iii) the consumer report contained either a red flag or a yellow flag; and (iv) RHI determined the applicant was “not placeable." The class definition also excludes any individuals who signed RHI’s arbitration acknowledgment form and did not opt out of the arbitration agreement within 30 days. The parties have excluded all such individuals from the agreed-upon class list. Robert Half is an international human resource consulting firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L8aqwR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Sola, Esq. ROBERT S. SOLA, PC 1500 SW First Avenue, Suite 800 Portland, OR 97201 - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren K.W. Brennan FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS PC, 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 The Defendant is represented by: Sarah J. Crooks, Esq. Alexander J. Bau, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209 - and - Robert T. Quackenboss, Esq. Kevin J. White, Esq. Evangeline C. Paschal, Esq. Roland M. Juarez, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20037 SAINT-GOBAIN: DuPont's Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE BAKER, et al., v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00917-LEK-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Stewart entered an order denying DuPont's Motion to exclude expert testimony from Mr. Huncik and Doctors Zabel, Shin, and Siegel. As Judge Kahn previously emphasized, the hedonic regression methodology is a widely accepted way "to demonstrate price impact on a class-wide basis." As stated by Judge Kahn, Dr. Siegel's methodology is reliable because he "meticulously explains how he acquired his data and subsequently analyzed it using standard hydrogeological analytical techniques to reach his conclusions." Tracing the transport of PFOA is relevant in a case about PFOA contaminating a water supply. The Court reiterates that it has not identified case law requiring that expert testimony be specific to class representatives only. Accordingly, the testimony of Mr. Huncik and Drs. Zabel, Shin, and Siegel is admissible under Daubert. The case involves a dispute concerning the contamination of the drinking water in Hoosick Falls, New York by perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"). The Plaintiffs allege that DuPont is liable for producing the PFOA that ultimately contaminated the water supply in Hoosick Falls. The class consists of people who lived in the affected areas so the amount of PFOA released where they lived is certainly probative. Saint-Gobain is a producer of engineered high performance polymer products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iCnGd5 at no extra charge.[CC] SECURED MARKETING: Heidarpour Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fred Heidarpour, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Secured Marketing Concepts Corp., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Pacific One Lending, Case No. 2:24-cv-00239-KML (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- granting default judgment on both causes of action, -- certifying class, -- appointing Patrick H. Peluso of Woodrow & Peluso, LLC as Class Counsel, -- granting Plaintiff's request to conduct limited discovery, and -- awarding such additional relief as it deems necessary, reasonable, and just. The Plaintiff requests a 120-day period to conduct limited discovery. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to serve written discovery on Defendant including requests for admission, requests for the production of documents, interrogatories, and subpoenas. The Plaintiff also seeks certification of a class of similarly-situated individuals defined to include: -- Pre-recorded No Consent Class "All persons in the United States from four years prior to the filing of the instant action who (1) Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant) make prerecorded calls; (2) to the person’s residential telephone number; and (3) for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior express written consent to call the Plaintiff, or where there is no record of prior express written consent." The case challenges the Defendant's serial violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. section 227, et seq.—specifically, its bar against making unauthorized pre-recorded calls to residential and cellular numbers. The Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint on Feb. 5, 2024 and (after an attempt on March 5, 2024 which the Court previously found to be ineffective) obtained effective service on the Defendant on July 17, 2024. Secured Marketing offers mortgage and insurance products and services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Od8hW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com SEEKING ALPHA: Lingley Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW LINGLEY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss his lawsuit entitled Matthew Lingley, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Seeking Alpha Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-5849, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for providing personalized investment advice even though it is not registered as an investment adviser. On Oct. 17, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Victor Marrero on Aug. 15, 2024. In sum, Judge Marrero held that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to plead facts sufficient to support a plausible inference that Seeking Alpha operated as an investment adviser and was not protected from registration by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940's (IAA) publishers' exclusion. The appellate case is captioned Lingley v. Seeking Alpha Inc., Case No. 24-2437, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 17, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MATTHEW LINGLEY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joshua Andreas Mayes, Esq. ROBBINS ALLOY BELINFANTE LITTLEFIELD LLC 500 14th Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30318 Defendant-Appellee SEEKING ALPHA INC. is represented by: Eleanor M. Lackman, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 437 Madison Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10022 SELECT PORTFOLIO: Court Narrows Claims in DeSimone Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA DeSIMONE, DEBORAH R. SNOWDEN, and INEZ CLARA WASHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. (SPS), Case No. 1:20-cv-03837-PKC-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Chen entered an order -- granting in part and denying in part SPSs motion to dismiss; and -- denying as premature SPS's motion to strike class allegations. The following claims are dismissed: (1) Snowden's standalone claim under Section 13- 301 of the MCPA; (2) Washington's claims under Section 1788.13(e) of the Rosenthal Act as well as under the "unfair" prong of the UCL; and (3) Plaintiffs' claims for breach of good faith and fair dealing. The remaining claims shall proceed. The Court finds that DeSimone's and Washington's breach of good faith and fair dealing claims cannot survive because the factual basis and relief sought for their claims for breach of good faith and fair dealing are the same as for their breach of contract claims. Accordingly, DeSimone's and Washington's claims for breach of good faith and fair dealing are duplicative and thus dismissed. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant SPS engaged in deceptive practices by charging "EZ Pay" fees or "pay-to-pay fees" of up to $15 each time the Plaintiffs sought to make mortgage payments online or by phone, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and various state statutory and common laws. The Plaintiffs Lisa DeSimone, Deborah R. Snowden, and Inez Clara Washington own homes located in New York, Maryland, and California, respectively, each of which is subject to a mortgage loan. SPS is a national loan servicing company that services residential loans. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c3IU9L at no extra charge.[CC] SELECT PORTFOLIO: Johnson Suit Removed to D. Oregon --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Donald Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case No. 24CV38382 was removed from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Washington, to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on Sept. 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01583-AR. On August 9, 2024 Plaintiff Donald Johnson ("Plaintiff") filed a putative class action against SPS in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Washington alleging violations of the Oregon Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("OFDCPA"), and violations of the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act ("OUTPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that SPS charged him and putative class members convenience fees when they chose to make their mortgage payments by phone or online, and that charging the fees violated the OFDCPA and the OUTPA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel P. Larsen, Esq. BUCHALTER, A Professional Corporation 805 SW Broadway, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97205 Phone: 503.226.1191 Email: dlarsen@buchalter.com SETSCHEDULE LLC: Smith Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Setschedule LLC. The case is styled as Roderick Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Setschedule LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01274-SGC (N.D. Ala., Sept. 18, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. SetSchedule, LLC -- https://www.setschedule.com/ -- provides online real estate services. The Company offers a platform that connects homeowners, home-buyers, and real estate agents who are looking to buy and sell properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin N. Smitherman, Esq. ALABAMA LAW SERVICES LLC 4685 Highway 17, Ste. D Helena, AL 35080 Phone: (205) 419-4414 Fax: (205) 419-4407 Email: jsmitherman@alabamalawservices.com SNOW COMMERCE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Herrera Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. SNOW COMMERCE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07054 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://paramountshop.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on Aug. 27, 2024, in an attempt to purchase The Late Show with Stephen Colbert First Drafts Greeting Card Pack, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public, the suit says. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, the suit alleges. This discrimination is particularly acute during the current COVID-19 global pandemic. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Herrera is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant offers official shows & movies merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal STEVE MADDEN: Wilkins Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Wilkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STEVE MADDEN, LTD., Case No. 719177/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., Sept. 17, 2024), is brought for its violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), due to its website being inaccessible to blind or visually-impaired people. Upon visiting Defendant's website, https://www.stevemadden.com (hereinafter referred to as "Website"), Plaintiff quickly became aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in a way to make it fully accessible for himself and for other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is visually impaired and legally blind. The Defendant is and was at all relevant times a company doing business and marketing to Pennsylvania customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Fax: (973) 525-2552 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com TANDYM GROUP: Court Terminates Armstrong Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNETTE ARMSTRONG and MATEO GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TANDYM GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03072-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order terminating case in light of the dismissal of the claims of the remaining plaintiff, Mateo Gomez, and given that no motion for class certification has been filed. -- All claims of the Plaintiff, Mateo Gomez, individually, are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Tandym is a provider of full-service recruitment, temporary staffing, and workforce management solutions in the Northeast and Florida. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tkGK7V at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-229 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com TC 860: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. TC 860 LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-23569 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 17, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property. The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial property and businesses located within the commercial property on July 23, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property and the tenants' businesses in it. He has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers has each denied or diminished the Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and its tenants, and in addition has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access has likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. TC 860 owned and operated a commercial property at 860 NE 79th Street, Miami, Florida 33138 and conducted business in that place of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE: Paxton Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE PAXTON, on behalf of himself and on all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY INC. Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-03166 (D. Neb., Sept. 12, 2024) seeks all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act, and the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act arising from Defendant's alleged unlawful labor conduct. This case arises from Tenneco's policies and practices of paying employees for scheduled hours rather than for all hours actually worked. The Defendant compensates employees only for their scheduled time regardless of how many hours they actually worked, which results in failure to compensate non-exempt employees for all work performed and an unlawful withholding of earned wages. The Plaintiff files this action to recover on behalf of himself, Collective members, and Class members, all unpaid wages, compensation, penalties, and other damages owed to them under Nebraska state law and the FLSA. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt Welder Fabricator in Seward, Nebraska from approximately January 2022 through February 22, 2024. Tenneco Automotive Operating Company Inc. is a company that designs, manufactures and markets automotive products. Tenneco employs hundreds of hourly non-exempt workers in Nebraska and various locations across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Esther L. Bylsma, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com ebylsma@schneiderwallace.com VIAQUEST LLC: Metzger Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ MISTY METZGER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Named Plaintiff v. VIAQUEST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03928-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 10, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its willful failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages as well as failure to comply with all other requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and Ohio unjust enrichment common law. According to the complaint, the Defendant shortchanged its non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff, and failed to pay overtime compensation through unlawful practices that do not pay all overtime hours worked at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates for hours more than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant consistently, willfully, and intentionally failed to pay Named Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and Ohio Classes for all hours, including overtime hours, worked, at the statutory overtime rate required, says the suit. Named Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid, non-exempt Direct Support Professional for the Defendant. ViaQuest, LLC provides direct care and related healthcare services for hospice, behavioral health, and specialized services for individuals with developmental disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370 Toledo, OH 43606 Telephone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 E-mail: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***