/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240927.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, September 27, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 195
Headlines
A-PLUS CARE: Reid Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over FreeStyle Libre Data Sharing
ACCELLION INC: Class Certification Bid in Brown Suit Due Dec. 16
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Kusnier Class Suit
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed
AMAZON INC: Ramirez Sues Over Deceptive Deal Prices
AMAZON PRIME: Faces Class Suit Over Mistreatment on MrBeast's Show
APPLE INC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final Nod
ARC DOCUMENT: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With TechPrint Holdings
ASPIRE HOUSTON: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Damaged Embryos
ATHLETIFREAK LLC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AUSTRALIA: ACT Junior Doctors Reach $31M. Class Action Settlement
AVIS RENT A CAR: Long Files Suit in D. New Jersey
AVIS RENT: Shay Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Customers' Info
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Mogolion
BATH & BODY: To Settle Dahlin Credit Card-Related Suit
BATH & BODY: To Settle Smidga Credit Card-Related Suit
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Randall Says
BMO HARRIS: Moss Files 2nd Cir. Appeal
BRIGHTON EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Court Approves Antitrust Class Suit Settlement
BURBERRY LIMITED: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Sayah Bid for More Time to File Class Cert OK'd
CENTERRA GROUP: Settlement in Williams Suit Gets Final Nod
CHAMPION FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Suit Alleges
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Owens Sues Over Unprotected Info
CHARTER FOODS: CMC in Knighten Set for Oct. 16
CHELSEA PINES: Chavez Bid for Default Judgment Nixed w/o Prejudice
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Class Suit Over PFAS in Trojan Condoms
CLEAN RITE: Singleton and Cedano Sue Over Cards' Misrepresentations
COMPASS MINERALS: Response to Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 16
CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Falcon Sensor Design
CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Suit in Texas Court
CRUNCH HOLDINGS: Pania Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 4, 2025
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Ervin Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
ENERGY FOR ALL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suarez Claims
EVANSTON, IL: Judicial Watch Asks Court to Reject Dismissal Bid
FANSHAWE COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Wide-Spread Negligence
FIAT CHRYSLER: Settlement Deal in Hall Class Suit Gets Initial Nod
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Faces Stamnes Class Suit Over Solar Panel Systems
FIVE BELOW INC: Securities Suit Ongoing in Pennsylvania Court
FIVE BELOW: Faces Police Class Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Parties Must File Written Case Status Report
FRICKER'S USA: Hyde Bid for Equitable Tolling OK'd
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 27, 2025
GENWORTH LIFE: Class Cert. Hearing in Silverstein Set for Oct. 10
GKN DRIVELINE: Ferges Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
GOLDCO DIRECT: Filing for Bid Class Cert Bid Due March 13, 2025
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 2, 2025
GUARD FORCE: Oral Argument on Bid to Certify Class Set for Oct. 8
HAIN CELESTIAL: Dismissal of SAC Under Appeal
HARVEY NORMAN: Faces Class Action Over Extended Warranties
HAWAII LOUNGE: Faces Jimenez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HEALTH INSURANCE: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Denied
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: Chen Appeals Dismissal of Assault Cases
ILLINOIS BONE: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Holovaty Says
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Nowling Suit Over Land Rovers' Radiator Defect
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Seiber Class Suit Over Defective Windshields
JARED RARDIN: Cheng Files Suit in D. Minnesota
JOEY BUILDERS: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
JP MORGAN: Canales Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
JUSTWORKS INC: Hackshaw Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
KAIZENCURE LLC: Shelat Seeks to Strike Class Affirmation Defenses
KEMPER SPORTS: Seals Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
KORIN INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Pollitt Class Suit Says
KRAFT HEINZ: Appeals Remand Order in Hortin Suit to 9th Circuit
LEAF HOME: Bid to Dismiss Lirones Class Action Tossed
LENDINGTREE LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Jan. 10, 2025
LIDO LABS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 13, 2025
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Faces Gyani Consumer Action in FL Court
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Faces Patel Shareholder Suit in NY Court
MALIBU BOATS: Faces Consumer Suit in Delaware
MALIBU BOATS: Faces Securities Suit Over Misleading Statements
MATAWANA LLC: Saunders Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
MATTERPORT INC: Declaratory Judgment Over Lock Up Provision Sought
MERIT ENERGY: Court Certifies Settlement Class in GOP Lawsuit
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Settlement in Securities Suit for Court OK
MEXICAN RESTAURANT: Reyes Seeks Servers' Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Sinclair Seeks to Certify Class Action
MISSION ESSENTIAL: Doe Appeals Dismissal of Data Breach Suit
MODERN CONCEPTS: Van Santen Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
MODERNA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 8
MUSEUM OF SEX: Ruiz Case Stayed Pending Mediation
NC ACCIDENT: Saunders Sues Over Website's Access Barriers
NEW FORTRESS: Faces Class Action Over 23.62% Stock Price Drop
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class of Mentally Impaired Children Certified
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Certifies Older Youth Placement Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: Court Junks Plaintiffs' Bid to Reject Objections
NRP FOOD: Correa Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
NVE INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Herrera Suit Alleges
NVIDIA CORP: Oral Argument in Securities Suit Set for Nov. 13
PATSY'S ITALIAN: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Ymeraga Suit Says
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Faces Mehring Suit in California
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Ratliff Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PHH MORTGAGE: Initial Written Discovery in Jones Due Oct. 3
POLANCO BROTHERS: Websites Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Alleges
POLENE USA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Bunting Suit Says
POWER HOME: Massarello TCPA Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Courts OK's Sealing of Haeflein Declaration
PROSEGUR SERVICES: Cameron FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
QUBE USA: Igartua Sues Over Website's Access Barriers to the Blind
R&G BRENNER: Cinar Wins Class Certification Bid
RAY JONES: Back Seeks Guidance on Sealed Status of Court Docs
RAZVAN POP: Uselmann Plaintiffs Win Partial Summary Judgment
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Sanchez Claims
RETAIL CONCEPTS: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Agnone Alleges
REZA ON CLARK: Agudo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Lagmanson Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
SAFEWAY INC: Deceptively Markets Wine, Tempest Suit Alleges
SCHENKER INC: Parties Seeks Jan. 16, 2025 Hearing on Class Cert.
SECOND CHANCE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Portillo Suit Says
SHABU SHABU: Hudson Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
SOLE PROVISIONS: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SPA NAIL 9: Li Appeals Attorney Fees and Costs Ruling to 2nd Cir.
SUNPATH LTD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Morales Extended to Dec. 20
SYMETRA LIFE: Court Stays Davis Suit Until Nov. 4
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 7
TGI FRIDAYS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 20, 2025
TOBIAS & ASSOCIATES: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Pratt Files Suit in D. Minnesota
TROPICAIRE DEVELOPMENT: Property Violates ADA, Longhini Suit Says
TYCO FIRE: Camden Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA: Underpays Flight Instructors, Suit Says
US BANCORP: Butler Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PIFI
VAXART INC: Himmelberg Seeks Prelim Sealing Portions of Class Reply
VISA INC: Old Jericho Loses Partial Summary Judgment Bid
VOLATO GROUP: Terminated Employees Sue Over WARN Violation
WAKEFERN FOOD: Parties Must File Joint Report on Settlement Status
WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Westchester Suit Over Stock Price Drop
WALMART INC: Knight Sues Over Coffee Creamer's Deceptive Labels
WALMART INC: Rogolino Suit Removed to E.D. California
WASSERSTROM HOLDINGS: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Initially OK'd
WEBER TREE: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Escalona Suit
WELLS FARGO: Matula Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
WELLWOOD 600: Public Accommodation Violates ADA, Rodriguez Alleges
WEST COAST LIFE: Milan Suit Removed to C.D. California
WESTECH SECURITY: Court Narrows Claims in Carrasquillo Suit
WEXFORD HEALTH: Class Cert Filing in Spurlock Amended to Dec. 16
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Spector Suit Removed to N.D. California
ZARBEE'S INC: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Set for Dec. 6
ZURICH AMERICAN: Hale Suit Removed to E.D. California
[*] Court Pares Claims in Putative Class Suit Against NFT Companies
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds $4.7MM Verdict Against Volkswagen AG
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Red River Talc Files for Ch. 11 to Resolve Claims
*********
A-PLUS CARE: Reid Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUISE REID, Individually
and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, v. A-PLUS
CARE HHC INC., SOFIA BAKALINSKY, FREDERICK BAKALINSKY, SPIROS
BOTOS, and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, Case No. 1:23-cv-01163-JPC-SDA
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying the action as a class action under New York State
law on behalf of Plaintiff and all similar home health aides
who worked for the Defendants since Feb. 10, 2017 (six years
before filing of complaint) ("Class Period") and performed
at
least one 24-hour live in shift during the period for which
they were not paid for their full 24 hours worked, and
appointing the named plaintiff as class representative and
the
named plaintiff's counsel as class counsel,
(2) certifying the action as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act on behalf of Plaintiff and similar home
health aides who were employed by Defendants as home health
aides at any time during the period Feb. 10, 2017 through
the
date of this Order (the "Collective Action Period"), and
worked
at least one 24-hour shift and were not paid minimum wages
for
their hours worked and/or time and one half their regular
wage
rate for their hours worked over 40 in a week ("overtime
hours") assuming they were entitled to 24 hours of pay for
their 24-hour live in shifts ("Collective Members"), and
appointing the named plaintiff as Collective representative
and
the named plaintiff's counsel as Collective counsel,
(3) directing the Defendants to disclose the names and last
known
addresses, phone numbers and emails of the Class Members and
Collective Members, and
(4) directing the posting and the service by mail and email upon
the Class Members and Collective Members of the class and
collective action notice attached as Exhibit I to the
declaration of William C. Rand.
A-Plus is a licensed home care agency providing home care services
to the New York Metropolitan area.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0tgSmi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William C. Rand, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 286-1425
Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over FreeStyle Libre Data Sharing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Whooley, writing for Drug Delivery Business News, reports that
Abbott (NYSE:ABT) faces a proposed class action lawsuit related to
alleged tracking tools used with its FreeStyle Libre platform.
ClassAction.org first reported on the claims.
The lawsuit alleges that tracking tools on Abbott's FreeStyle Libre
website expose private consumer information without their knowledge
or consent. Its FreeStyle. Abbott website provides educational
tools for the continuous glucose monitor (CGM) technology, cost and
coverage information and more.
An Abbott spokesperson provided the following statement to Drug
Delivery Business News via email:
"Abbott just received the complaint, and we are currently reviewing
it. We build privacy and security protections into the products and
services we design and have robust privacy and security systems in
place to protect the data we collect."
Plaintiffs Lily Nguyen, Emzora Mitchell and Frank Ortega brought
forward the complaint in the U.S. District Court For The Northern
District of Illinois Eastern Division. They claim that software on
Abbott's site, which includes at least Meta pixel, Google
Analytics, Google DoubleClick and Google Tag Manager, tracks users
and sends their data back to the third parties.
The complaint alleges that the tracking tools used by Abbott allow
the unauthorized third parties to intercept customer
communications. These tools also enable the third parties to view
private information and mine that information, according to the
complaint. This could lead to monetizing data to deliver targeted
advertisements, among other things.
Plaintiffs say their activity on the website led to targeted
advertisements on Facebook and Instagram related to diabetes
management.
Data could include information about medical conditions, insurance
coverage details and their diabetes management. The suit says the
information is returned to third parties with personal identifiers
like IP addresses or Facebook ID. Plaintiffs say they never
consented to third-party information sharing and alleges a HIPAA
violation.
"In doing so, and by designing its website in the manner described
throughout this complaint, Abbott knew or should have known that
its customers would use the website to communicate private
information in conjunction with obtaining and receiving medical
services and products from it," the complaint reads.
Medtronic faced a similar data sharing lawsuit last year. [GN]
ACCELLION INC: Class Certification Bid in Brown Suit Due Dec. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Accellion, Inc.,
Case No. 5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward
Davila entered an order granting in part administrative motion for
relief from case management schedule:
the Court resets the class certification deadlines as follows:
Class certification motion due: Dec. 16, 2024
Opposition to class certification due: Jan. 29, 2025
Reply in support of class certification due: March 12, 2025
Hearing on class certification April 17, 2025
Accellion is an American technology company that secures sensitive
content communications over channels such as email, file share,
file transfer, managed file transfer, web forms, and application
programming interfaces.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qBKm8l at no extra
charge.[CC]
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Kusnier Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Affirm Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 29, 2024, that on August 26, 2024,
the court granted Affirm's motion to dismiss a putative class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California filed on December 8, 2022 by plaintiff Mark Kusnier
with leave to amend by September 25, 2024.
On May 5, 2023, plaintiffs Kusnier and Chris Meinsen filed their
first amended complaint alleging that the defendants caused Affirm
to make materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that Affirm's "Buy-Now-Pay-Later" service facilitated
excessive consumer debt (including with respect to certain
for-profit educational institutions), regulatory arbitrage, and
data harvesting, made false and/or misleading statements about
certain public regulatory actions and made false and/or misleading
statements about whether Affirm's business model was vulnerable to
interest rate changes. On December 20, 2023, the court granted
Affirm's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint with leave
to amend.
On January 19, 2024, plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint, which contains only the allegations from the first
amended complaint relating to false and/or misleading statements
about whether Affirm's business model was vulnerable to interest
rate changes. Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and costs and expenses. Affirm
filed its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
February 2, 2024.
Affirm Holdings, Inc. is a next-generation e-commerce platform with
agreements with originating banks, and capital markets partners,
that enable consumers to confidently pay for a purchase over time,
with terms ranging up to sixty months.
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY SNOW, et al., v.
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-03269-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order denying the motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement because it fails to
address at least four key issues:
-- The motion, along with the Azari declaration, asserts that a
claims process is preferable in this case because of
uncertainty
about the accuracy of the class members' contact information.
-- The motion asserts that treating all class members equally is
reasonable because the maximum difference in overcharge was
less
than $150.
-- The motion makes repeated reference to this Court's previous
comments that the allegations relating to Smile Direct Club
seemed
weak. The Court stands by those comments, but they were merely
about the allegations, not the actual evidence.
The action is an antitrust case against Align, which is the
dominant player in the aligner market.
The settlement contemplates that roughly 1.5 million people who may
need aligners, and who previously purchased aligners from a
different company, will be offered $300 coupons for Align's
products and services.
Align is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and
Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5cinxj at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON INC: Ramirez Sues Over Deceptive Deal Prices
---------------------------------------------------
Laura Pippig, writing for PCWorld, asks why Amazon rise to world
dominance? It made online shopping convenient and easy, yes. And it
stocked almost every item you can think of, sure. But really it
comes down to low prices and discounts. Prime Day and the upcoming
Prime Big Deal Days events are prime examples.
But the online shopping titan is currently facing headwind for its
pricing policy. A class action lawsuit alleges that the company
advertises with "fake discounts" to entice customers into making
purchases.
The Ramirez v. Amazon lawsuit was filed by lead plaintiff David
Ramirez at the Western District Court in Washington. It calls out
Amazon's alleged practice of using fake list prices that aren't
suitable for use as genuine comparative values for advertised
discounts.
Deceptive practices in Amazon deals
The claim states that list prices on Amazon may not be older than
90 days. However, Amazon allegedly used older prices as comparative
values to make current discounts appear significantly better.
One example mentions Fire TV models, which are produced by Amazon
and were offered at a discount. Comparative prices from 2023 were
allegedly used to conceal the fact that Fire TVs had been cheaper
to buy in the past, but that would've made the offer less
attractive.
In addition, Amazon allegedly labeled the deals as limited-time
offers, which in reality were not limited at all. According to the
lawsuit, this helped to push potential customers to buy.
Waiting for an injunction against Amazon
Ramirez emphasizes that deals have a major influence on consumer
purchasing decisions and that companies should therefore not
advertise with "fake discounts." He's therefore suing for
injunctive relief and hopes that other affected parties will join
him.
The court must now decide whether the lawsuit will be upheld and
whether those affected can hope to receive compensation. If
consumer purchases can be demonstrably linked to these deceptive
offers, a decision could be made in favor of the plaintiffs.
Until then, take care when shopping Amazon deals. Use price
tracking tools like CamelCamelCamel and Keepa, which monitor Amazon
price histories for millions of products, so you can check if any
given "deal" on a product is actually a deal by comparing past
prices. [GN]
AMAZON PRIME: Faces Class Suit Over Mistreatment on MrBeast's Show
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mychal Thompson of BuzzFeed reports that MrBeast and Amazon are
facing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of five unnamed contestants
in the Beast Games reality competition show.
YouTube star MrBeast (real name Jimmy Donaldson), with more than
316 million subscribers, partnered with Amazon to host what was set
to be the largest reality show in history, with over 1,000
contestants and a $5-million prize.
On Sept. 16, a complaint was filed with the Los Angeles Superior
Court alleging the contestants were subjected to "chronic
mistreatment," sexual harassment, emotional distress, and more.
Everything is included in this redacted copy of the complaint.
Additionally, the class-action lawsuit on behalf of all the
contestants demands they be compensated for allegedly unpaid wages,
expenses, and monetary damages during their time on the show.
The lawsuit alleges that MrBeast's production company, Off One's
Base LLC, failed to pay overtime and minimum wages, didn't provide
the contestants with uninterrupted meal breaks and rest breaks,
didn't provide workers compensation benefits, and exposed them to
"dangerous circumstances and conditions as a condition of their
employment."
While many elements of the complaint are redacted, it claims "the
Beast Games Production was so void of standards of reasonable care
that MrBeast allegedly offered to cover the contestants' therapy."
Although Amazon has claimed it will be "the world's largest live
gameshow," Beast Games has yet to receive a release date.
BuzzFeed has reached out to reps for MrBeast and Amazon for
comments. [GN]
APPLE INC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE APPLE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02033-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers entered an order:
-- Granting motion for final approval of class settlement.
-- Granting motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards
as
follows:
Class Counsel is awarded $107,800,000 in attorneys' fees and
$2,651,465.53 in litigation costs.
Lead Plaintiff Norfolk County Council as Administering
Authority
of the Norfolk Pension Fund is granted an incentive award of
$29,946.40.
Without affecting the finality of this order in any way, the
Court
retains jurisdiction of all matters relating to the
interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation
and
enforcement of this order and the Settlement.
The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action complaint on April
16, 2019, against the defendants Apple Inc., Timothy Cook, and Luca
Maestri alleging defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and omissions about demand for the newly released iPhone
and Apple's business in China.
On Feb. 4, 2022, the Court issued an order certifying a class of
purchasers or acquirers of Apple common stock and denying without
prejudice the motion with respect to a proposed class of options
investors.
On March 15, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff moved for preliminary
approval on its settlement agreement with Defendants.
Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3pHrha at no extra
charge.[CC]
ARC DOCUMENT: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With TechPrint Holdings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating ARC Document Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: ARC), relating to
its proposed merger with TechPrint Holdings, LLC. Under the terms
of the agreement, ARC shareholders are expected to receive $3.40 in
cash per share they own.
Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/arc-document-solutions-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
ASPIRE HOUSTON: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Damaged Embryos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Bozarjian, writing for ABC 7, reports that a Houston area
fertility clinic was slapped with a class action lawsuit Tuesday,
September 17, by couples who claim they were lied to about their
chances of becoming pregnant.
A court filing alleges that Aspire Houston Fertility Institute
knowingly implanted at least five hopeful mothers with dead or
damaged embryos.
The lawsuit adds that this happened due to a massive laboratory
failure at the company's Piney Point facility in west Houston.
Nicole Alarcon and her high school sweetheart husband Agustin said
"I do" back in 2020. They tried for the next four years to have a
baby naturally until ultimately turning to fertility treatments.
Initially, it was a success. Alarcon was told she produced 14
embryos viable for transfer.
"Man, we were just so excited because for us, that meant 14 chances
of getting pregnant, and we thought surely, we will get pregnant
with 14 embryos," Alarcon said.
She added that she received three transfers from the Aspire
Fertility Institute. She said two were unsuccessful and one
resulted in a miscarriage.
She underwent more testing, assuming it was her own biological
failure.
"Shortly after, we got a call from our doctor, and he told us that
our embryos -- that there was some sort of lab issue," Alarcon
said.
The information shared on the call ultimately led the couple to
join a class action lawsuit.
According to the court filing, the so-called lab issue affected
embryos retrieved and stored at its Piney Point facility in
February and March this year.
The lawsuit claims it resulted from a defective freezing agent used
to preserve the viable tissue.
Attorneys even hired their own fertility doctors who examined
pictures of Alarcon's embryos throughout the process. The doctors
said there was evidence of cell death early on.
"Aspire knew that they had a problem because pregnancy rates
dropped to nearly zero," attorney Rob Marcereau, who represents the
plaintiffs, said.
In a statement to ABC13, Aspire acknowledged a slight decrease in
thawing survival rates for embryos frozen in its Houston Piney
Point laboratory during the timeline outlined in the lawsuit:
"Immediately upon identifying this potential issue, we halted use
of this media. Upon returning to our previously used media, our
survival rates returned to our industry-leading standards. No other
Aspire-affiliated laboratory was impacted by this issue.
To AspireHFI's knowledge at the time the issue was limited to a
decrease in embryo survival rates at the time of embryo thawing.
Indeed, there are numerous healthy ongoing pregnancies from embryos
successfully thawed that had been frozen during the dates in
question and there was no reason to believe that any embryos that
survived thawing would be negatively impacted."
"To find out this was all essentially for nothing, and we'd have to
start over as if we never did IVF in the first place, it is a
really hard pill to swallow," Alarcon said.
According to her, she wasn't told her embryos were no good until
seven months after they were taken from her body and stored.
"I think for us, that is the biggest reason we are coming out and
sharing our story because I still believe there are so many women
that don't even know," she said.
Aspire said there are numerous healthy ongoing pregnancies from
embryos successfully thawed that had been frozen during the dates
in question, and there was no reason to believe those pregnancies
would be negatively affected.
The four other couples in the lawsuit wished to remain anonymous,
but attorneys said that for some, this was the end of the road.
"A fertility clinic is supposed to help you get pregnant, and we
put a lot of trust in them as the experts, and Aspire completely
broke our trust and so many other families," Alarcon said.
AspireHFI said it's dedicated to the well-being of its patients and
their tissues. It denies ever knowingly transferring non-viable
tissue and calls the allegations false and defamatory. [GN]
ATHLETIFREAK LLC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edery Herrera, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. ATHLETIFREAK LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07133
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 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://athletifreak.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.
ATHLETIFREAK LLC, operates the Athletifreak online retail store, as
well as the Athletifreak 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
AUSTRALIA: ACT Junior Doctors Reach $31M. Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Bell and Peter Jean, writing for ABC News, report that
junior doctors in the ACT reach $31.5 million settlement in class
action over unpaid overtime.
In short:
Junior doctors in the ACT have reached a $31.5 million dollar
settlement in their class action over unpaid overtime.
The result paves the way for an estimated 2,200 junior doctors
employed in the ACT over the past eight years to receive repayment
for their unpaid overtime.
What's next?
The terms of the settlement are subject to final approval by the
Federal Court, where it's expected to be considered later this
year.
Former Canberra junior doctor Betty Ge believes a $31.5 million
settlement in a class action over unpaid overtime is as much a win
for patients as it is for medicos.
Dr Ge was one of the litigants in the case, which has paved the way
for 2,200 junior doctors employed in the ACT over the past eight
years to receive repayment for their unpaid overtime.
The terms of the settlement are subject to final approval by the
Federal Court, where it's expected to be considered later this
year.
Dr Ge said junior doctors in some busy departments at the Canberra
Hospital and the former Calvary Public Hospital had regularly been
undertaking between 10 and 15 hours of unpaid overtime per week.
"Just like any other industry, there has to be a safe hours policy
in place," Dr Ge said.
"Doctors are humans -- we get fatigued. And when you're fatigued
you are more likely to make mistakes and ultimately that's not good
for the health outcomes for our community.
"By working all those hours, prolonged working hours, can cause
mental burnout for a lot of our doctors and we can certainly see
the attrition in our workforce."
Dr Ge is now working as a GP in Canberra.
She hoped the news of the settlement would ensure the next
generation of young doctors could be confident about undertaking
placements at Canberra's public hospitals.
"It's a breath of relief for a lot of junior doctors and for future
doctors this is certainly very much welcome news," Dr Ge said.
And we're looking forward to a positive culture change in the
hospital system for our junior doctors."
'Accepted behaviour'
Lawyer Hayden Stephens represented the doctors, and said the
behaviour was widespread.
"This requirement imposed upon doctors to stay back to perform
these tasks has been very much accepted behaviour at both Calvary
and Canberra for a number of years," Mr Stephens said.
"It's behaviour that's very much gone unchallenged."
Mr Stephens said some senior doctors encouraged junior staff to do
the extra work without complaint, as they had done early in their
careers.
"It wouldn't be unusual for a senior doctor to say to a junior
doctor: I did it this way therefore you should do the same," he
said.
"Many doctors I spoke to had a genuine concern that their excessive
hours, their fatigue was impacting their care for patients.
"Those attitudes I think are slowly changing but certainly junior
doctors today have said enough is enough."
However, Mr Stephens said some things are now moving in the right
direction.
"Work practices within hospitals are improving, where doctors'
hours are more carefully monitored and their actual hours being
recognised."
Health Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith said she was pleased the
settlement had been reached.
But she stressed that the underpayment stemmed from broader
cultural issues in the medical profession, and not any specific
failure of the ACT government.
"I welcomed those junior doctors taking action to stand up for
their rights," Ms Stephen-Smith said.
Ms Stephen-Smith urged the current and future crops of junior
doctors not to revert to working overtime without it being logged.
"If junior medical officers are working un-rostered overtime, tell
us about it," she said.
"Not only will you get paid, but that will inform future rostering
activity."
Liberals say dispute should been settled sooner
Liberal health spokeswoman Leanne Castley welcomed the settlement
but said Ms Stephen-Smith should have ensured the issue was
resolved long ago.
Ms Castley also criticised cultural problems within the ACT's
public health system.
"I'm just thrilled for the doctors,'' Ms Castley said.
"We need to keep them. They're so valued and important to our
health system.
"But we know that the culture is an issue and that this is
something the minister could have done early to fix the problem.''
Ms Castley said the government would need to explain how it would
find the funds to pay the settlement.
"What will they cut? They ask us that all of the time,'' she said.
"So, $31 million -- I don't imagine they had that budget and where
does that money come from now? If they had have done the right
thing in the first place, would we be out of pocket $31 million?"
[GN]
AVIS RENT A CAR: Long Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avis Rent A Car
System, LLC. The case is styled as Douglas Long, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avis Rent A Car
System, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-09328 (D.N.J., Sept. 20, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Avis Car Rental, LLC -- https://www.avis.com/en/home -- is an
American car rental company headquartered in Parsippany, New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Raymond Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Phone: (877) 561-0000
Fax: (855) 582-5297
Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
AVIS RENT: Shay Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Customers' Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASON SHAY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-09252 (D.N.J.,
Sept. 18, 2024) alleges the Defendant failed to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class members' personally
identifiable information stored within the Defendant's information
network.
A wide variety of PII was implicated in the breach, including
names, driver's license number, date of birth, credit card number
and expiration date and phone number. The Plaintiff is now at a
significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud,
identity theft, and similar forms of criminal mischief, and such
risk may last for the rest of his life. Consequently, the Plaintiff
must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect
himself, to the extent possible, from these crimes, the suit
contends.
As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff suffered
actual damages including time related to monitoring his financial
accounts for fraudulent activity, facing an increased and imminent
risk of fraud and identity theft, the lost value of his personal
information, and other economic and non-economic harm.
The Plaintiffs bring this Class action on behalf of themselves and
the over 300,000 other individuals whose PII was accessed and
exposed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach of the
Defendant's system between August 3, and August 6, 2024, which Avis
discovered on Aug. 5, 2024, and announced publicly via letter to
affected individuals on Sept. 4, 2024.
Plaintiff Jason Shay, is an adult individual and a citizen of
Texas, residing in McKinney, Texas. He is a victim of the Data
Breach.
Avis is part of Avis Budget Group, Inc., a car rental agency
holding company based in Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: lverderame@edelson-law.com
medelson@edelson-law.com
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Mogolion
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO MOGOLLON and
COLLEEN LOWE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (BNYM), Case No.
3:19-cv-03070-N-BV (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amands 'Amy' Burch
entered an order granting joint motion to amend scheduling order
regarding class certification deadlines:
1. The Plaintiffs must serve on BNYM (but not file with the
Court)
their motion for class certification no later than Oct. 8,
2024.
2. BNYM must serve on Plaintiffs (but not file with the Court)
their response to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
including all supporting evidence and supporting brief, no
later
than Nov. 7, 2024.
3. The Plaintiffs must serve on BNYM (but not file with the
Court)
their reply to BNYM's response, including rebuttal evidence,
if
any, and supporting brief, no later than Nov. 26, 2024.
4. The Court will consider class certification on written
submission on Dec. 11, 2024 (the "Submission Date").
5. The First Amended Scheduling Order controls all other
deadlines
and requirements not addressed by this Order.
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is an American international
financial services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ArqSFo at no extra
charge.[CC]
BATH & BODY: To Settle Dahlin Credit Card-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Bath & Body Works, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended August 3, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2024, that it was named as a
defendant in a putative class action captioned
"Dahlin v. Bath & Body Works, LLC" in the Santa Barbara County,
California Superior Court. The company has reached an agreement
with the plaintiffs that will resolve those matters, subject to
court approval.
The complaint alleged that the company violated the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act by printing more than the last
five digits of credit or debit card numbers on customers' receipts
and, among other things, sought statutory damages, attorneys' fees
and costs.
Bath & Body Works, Inc. is a global omnichannel retailer focused on
personal care and home fragrance. It sells merchandise through its
retail stores in the United States of America and Canada, and
through its websites and other channels, under the Bath & Body
Works, White Barn and other brand names.
BATH & BODY: To Settle Smidga Credit Card-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Bath & Body Works, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended August 3, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2024, that it was named as a
defendant in a putative class action captioned "Smidga, et al. v.
Bath & Body Works, LLC" in the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Court
of Common Pleas. The company has reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs that will resolve those matters, subject to court
approval.
The complaint alleged that the company violated the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act by printing more than the last
five digits of credit or debit card numbers on customers' receipts
and, among other things, sought statutory damages, attorneys' fees
and costs.
Bath & Body Works, Inc. is a global omnichannel retailer focused on
personal care and home fragrance. It sells merchandise through its
retail stores in the United States of America and Canada, and
through its websites and other channels, under the Bath & Body
Works, White Barn and other brand names.
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Randall Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TONY RANDALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08589
(N.D. Ill., Sept. 18, 2024) is a data breach class action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' Personally
Identifiable Information and protected health information.
On June 10, 2024, the Defendant identified indications of a
cybersecurity attack on its network. Despite first becoming aware
of the Data Breach on June 10, 2024, the Defendant allegedly waited
to notify the Plaintiff and other Class Members until August 8,
2024 via a Notice of Data Breach Letter.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered injury and ascertainable losses in the form of the present
and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack, and the loss of, and diminution in, value of their
personal information, the lawsuit asserts.
As a result of this delayed response letter, Plaintiff and Class
Members had no idea their Private Information had been compromised,
and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of
identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and
financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective
lifetimes, the lawsuit adds.
To date, the Defendant has done nothing to provide the Plaintiff
and Class Members with relief for the damages they have suffered
and will continue to be suffered as a result of the Data Breach,
the Plaintiff claims.
Plaintiff Randall is and was an individual citizen of the State of
California, residing in Adelanto, California.
Baxter is a medical equipment manufacturing company that provides
medical professionals and patients with healthcare products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
BMO HARRIS: Moss Files 2nd Cir. Appeal
--------------------------------------
DEBORAH MOSS has filed an appeal in her lawsuit entitled Deborah
Moss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:13-cv-5438, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
commenced this action on Nov. 30, 2013, against the Defendants
alleging (i) a substantive violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(c) and conspiracy to violate RICO pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(d); and (ii) New York State law claims for a
violation of the General Business Law ("GBL"), and for unjust
enrichment. The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Jan. 3,
2014.
On June 9, 2014, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration and stayed this action. Thereafter, on July 16, 2015,
the Court vacated its arbitration order and lifted the stay after
the Plaintiff informed the Court that the designated forum had
declined to arbitrate the case. Following an interlocutory appeal,
the Second Circuit affirmed that decision.
The Plaintiff then filed the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on
Oct. 4, 2016. The Defendants moved to dismiss on Nov. 17, 2016; the
Plaintiff filed her opposition on Jan. 4, 2017; and the Defendants
replied on Jan. 24, 2017. The Court heard oral argument on Feb. 13,
2017, and the Defendants subsequently filed letters providing
additional, unpublished legal authority in support of its motion on
March 7, 2017 and June 7, 2017.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's substantive RICO
claim because the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged (i) the
existence of an association-in-fact enterprise; and (ii) that the
Defendants conducted or participated in the affairs of a RICO
enterprise. As a result, the RICO conspiracy claim must also be
dismissed because there is no plausible underlying substantive
violation. With respect to the Plaintiff's state law claims, the
Court agreed with the Defendants that Plaintiff has failed to state
a cause of action under the GBL because there are no allegations
that defendant engaged in consumer-oriented, misleading conduct.
However, the Defendants' motion is denied with respect to the
unjust enrichment claim because the Court concludes that the
Plaintiff has adequately alleged that she conferred a benefit on
the Defendants. Finally, in an abundance of caution, the Court
permitted the Plaintiff to amend her pleading one final time to
attempt to allege plausible RICO and GBL claims.
The appellate case is captioned Moss v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., Case
No. 24-2449, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on September 18, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DEBORAH MOSS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Darren T. Kaplan, Esq.
KAPLAN GORE LLP
346 Westbury Avenue, Suite 200
Carle Place, NY 11514
BRIGHTON EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE BERNARDINO SEVERIAN, on behalf of himself, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRIGHTON EXPRESS FOOD
MARKET d/b/a BRIGHTON FOOD EXPRESS, and DANIEL SHAPIRO, ELLIOT
SHAPIRO, and JOSEPH SHAPIRO, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-06582
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2024) seeks recover damages for Defendants'
systemic and continuous violations of the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Despite regularly working beyond 40 hours in a week, the Defendants
allegedly failed and refused to pay Plaintiff any overtime
compensation for any hours the Plaintiff worked beyond 40 each
week. In addition, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff at a rate
which fell below the applicable the New York statutory minimum
wage, resulting in the Plaintiff suffering unpaid minimum wages for
all hours worked in willful violation of the NYLL and NYCRR's
minimum wage provision.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff an additional
one (1) hour's pay at the New York minimum wage rate for each day
during which the Plaintiff's workday exceeded ten hours from start
to finish, in violation of the NYLL and the New York Comp. Codes R.
& Regs's ("NYCRR") spread-of-hours provision, 12 NYCRR section
142-2.4. The Defendants also failed to furnish the Plaintiff with
any accurate wage statements on each payday in violation of NYLL
section195(3), says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants primarily within the
Defendants' fruits department, from September 2009 until May 16,
2024.
Brighton is a food market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avraham Y. Scher, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Court Approves Antitrust Class Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If You Were Enrolled in a Full-Time Undergraduate Program and You
Received Financial Aid at Any Time Between 2003 and 2024, a Class
Action Settlement Totaling $284 Million May Affect Your Legal
Rights.
A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.
On July 20, 2024, a federal court issued an Order approving
settlements ("Settlements") with the following ten defendant
universities: Brown University ("Brown"), University of Chicago
("Chicago"), the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New
York ("Columbia"), Trustees of Dartmouth College ("Dartmouth"),
Duke University ("Duke"), Emory University ("Emory"), Northwestern
University ("Northwestern"), William Marsh Rice University
("Rice"), Vanderbilt University ("Vanderbilt") and Yale University
("Yale"). The Court has also approved a Settlement Class of
students and alumni who attended the following seventeen schools
(during certain time periods): Brown, California Institute of
Technology, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell University, Dartmouth, Duke,
Emory, Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northwestern, University of
Notre Dame, University of Pennsylvania, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Yale
(the "Defendants," or "Universities," or "Defendant Universities").
As a part of the Settlement, the Defendant Universities have agreed
to make settlement payments totaling $284 million and to provide
certain additional information to the plaintiffs in this antitrust
class action lawsuit called Henry, et al. v. Brown University, et
al., 1:22-cv-00125, pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois ("Action").
The Action was brought by certain students and alumni who attended
the Universities while receiving partial need-based financial aid.
The Action alleges that the Universities conspired in violation of
the federal antitrust laws regarding principles, formulas, and
methods of determining financial aid. The Action also alleges that
as a result, the Universities provided less financial aid than they
would have provided had there been full and fair competition. The
Universities have alleged that the plaintiffs' claims lack merit;
that the Universities' financial aid policies were legal and
pro-competitive; that financial aid awards were not artificially
reduced; that the Universities have valid defenses to the
plaintiffs' allegations; and that the plaintiffs' claims would have
been rejected prior to trial, at trial, or on appeal.
What does the Settlement provide?
The Defendant Universities have agreed to provide, collectively,
$284 million in cash for the benefit of the Settlement Class as a
part of the Settlement Fund.
Every member of the Settlement Class who (a) did not timely exclude
him, her, or themselves from the Settlement Class by the May 13,
2024 deadline, and (b) files a valid and timely claim postmarked or
submitted online by December 17, 2024 will be paid monies from the
Settlement Fund. The money in this Settlement Fund will also be
used to pay the following, as approved by the Court:
-- The cost of settlement administration and notice, applicable
taxes on the Settlement Fund, and any other related tax expenses,
as approved by the Court;
-- Money awards for the Settlement Class Representatives for
their service on behalf of the Settlement Class, as approved by the
Court, and
-- Attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses for Settlement
Class Counsel, as approved by the Court.
Payments for claims will vary depending on a number of factors,
including the net price of the university attended at the time of
attendance and the number of claims filed. Assuming that about half
of the estimated 200,000 Class members submit timely claims, the
average claimant will receive about $2,000 from these Settlements.
In addition, under the Settlement, the Universities have agreed to
provide the plaintiffs with access to certain additional discovery
as detailed in the Settlement Agreements.
For more information about the Settlement Agreements, please visit
www.FinancialAidAntitrustSettlement.com.
Am I eligible to receive a payment from the Settlements?
You may be eligible to receive a payment if you are a U.S. citizen
or permanent resident who has during the Class Period (a) enrolled
in one or more of Defendants' full-time undergraduate programs, and
(b) received at least some need-based financial aid from one or
more Defendants, and (c) directly purchased from one or more
Defendants tuition, fees, room, or board that was not fully covered
by the combination of any types of financial aid or merit aid (not
including loans) from one or more Defendants in any undergraduate
year. The Class Period is defined as follows:
-- For Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Duke Georgetown, MIT,
Northwestern, Notre Dame, Penn, Rice, Vanderbilt, Yale -- from Fall
Term 2003 through February 28, 2024.
-- For Brown, Dartmouth, Emory -- from Fall Term 2004 through
February 28, 2024.
-- For Caltech -- from Fall Term 2019 through February 28, 2024.
-- For Johns Hopkins -- from Fall Term 2021 through February 28,
2024.
For more information, visit
www.FinancialAidAntitrustSettlement.com.
How do I ask for money from these Settlements?
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a
valid and timely claim postmarked or submitted online by December
17, 2024 to get money from the Settlement Fund. As part of the
Court-approved distribution and allocation process, the Claims
Administrator will distribute to all Settlement Class members who
did not exclude themselves from the Settlement Class, and for which
there are valid email or mail addresses, a Claim Form to complete.
The Claim Form will also be available on the Settlement Website
www.FinancialAidAntitrustSettlement.com. Members of the Settlement
Class may also contact the Claims Administrator by phone at
1-833-585-3338 or by email at
Info@FinancialAidAntitrustSettlement.com if they do not receive a
Claim Form. The Claim Form will include the deadline for timely
submission and instructions on how to submit or approve the Claim
Form.
Do Settlement Class members have a lawyer in this case?
Yes. The Court appointed the following law firms to represent
Settlement Class members: Freedman Normand Friedland LLP, Gilbert
Litigators & Counselors, PC, and Berger Montague PC. These firms
are called Settlement Class Counsel. They will be paid from the
Settlement Fund.
This notice is only a summary.
For more information, including the Claim Form, full Notice and
Settlement Agreements,
visit www.FinancialAidAntitrustSettlement.com, email
Info@FinancialAidAntitrustSettlement.com, or call 1-833-585-3338.
Media Contact:
Angeion Group
Shiri Lasman
(215) 563-4116 [GN]
BURBERRY LIMITED: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDREW WILKINS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BURBERRY LIMITED, Defendant, Case
No. 2024-03254-TT, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Chester County, Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on September 13, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04872 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Burberry Limited retails several apparel and accessories, including
coats, jackets, shirts, sweaters, trousers, denims, swim wear,
belts, sunglasses, and fragrances for men, women, and children.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Emory A. Strawn, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
2222 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3007
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
E-mail: emory.strawn@morganlewis.com
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Sayah Bid for More Time to File Class Cert OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon.
Judge Christopher Conner entered an order granting the unopposed
motion of the Plaintiff for enlargement of time to file motion for
class certification.
The Plaintiff shall file his Motion for Class Certification on a
date to be determined after the Court rules on the Defendant's
pending Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Capstone is a provider of 3rd Party Logistics.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d3xOEg at no extra
charge.[CC]
CENTERRA GROUP: Settlement in Williams Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shawn Williams, David
Green, Jamie Coomes, Malcum Kenner, and Andrew Barrett,
individually and as representatives of a class of participants and
beneficiaries on behalf of the Centerra Group, LLC 401(k) Plan (nka
the Constellis 401(k) Plan), v. Centerra Group, LLC; The Benefit
Plan Committee of the Centerra Investment Group, LLC; The
Investment Committee of the Centerra Group, LLC; AON Hewitt
Investment Consulting, Inc. (nka Aon Investments USA, Inc.); Paul
P. Donahue; Deborah F. Ricci; Marcia Aldrich; and John Does 1–10;
Case No. 1:20-cv-04220-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri Lydon
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys'
fees, reimbursement of expenses, and class representatives'
compensation, and the parties' joint motion for final approval of
class action settlement.
1. The operative complaint and all claims asserted in the Class
Action are dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any
of
the Settling Parties and Released Parties other than as
provided
for in the Settlement Agreement.
2. The Plan, the Class Representatives, and the Class Members
(and
their respective heirs, beneficiaries, executors,
administrators, estates, past and present partners, officers,
directors, predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, and
attorneys) fully, finally, and forever settle, release,
relinquish, waive, and discharge all Released Parties
(including
Defendants) from the Released Claims, regardless of whether
or
not such Class Member receives a monetary benefit from the
Settlement, executed and delivered a Former Participant Claim
Form, filed an objection to the Settlement or to any
application
by Class Counsel for an award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs,
and
whether or not the objections or claims for distribution of
such
Class Member have been approved or allowed.
3. The Class Representatives, Class Members, and the Plan
settle,
release, relinquish, waive, and discharge any and all rights
or
benefits they may now have, or in the future may have, under
any
law relating to the releases of unknown claims, including
without limitation, Section 1542 of the California Civil
Code,
The court certified the following class:
"All participants and beneficiaries of the Centerra Group, LLC
401(k) Plan from July 1, 2016 until January 1, 2019, excluding
Defendants and members of the Benefit Plan Committee of Centerra
Group, LLC, and the Investment Committee of Centerra Group,
LLC"
On May 3, 2024, Analytics Consulting, LLC, the settlement
administrator, mailed 4,817 notices to class members."
As of May 31, 2024, the deadline to object to the settlement, no
class member objected to any portion of the proposed settlement or
Plaintiffs' motion for fees, costs, and service awards.
Centera provides military services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RC7Dj8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHAMPION FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
TONY CORTEZ WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHAMPION FOODS, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-12423-SKD-EAS (E.D. Mich., September 13, 2024), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's
fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the common law claim of unjust enrichment.
From approximately March 2023 through July 2024, the Defendant
employed Plaintiff as an hourly warehouse worker and freezer
technician. through the use of a computer software system,
Defendant recorded its Plaintiff's time clock punches on a daily
basis. The Defendant, however, did not pay him based on his time
clock punches but, instead, only paid him to his scheduled shift
times. In addition, the Defendant failed to take the various
routine and non-discretionary remuneration into consideration when
calculating its Plaintiff's regular rate of pay and resulting
overtime premium rate, says the suit.
Headquartered in Detroit, MI, Champion Foods, LLC manufactures food
products for both private label and store brands, specializing in
pizzas and breadsticks. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melm Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Owens Sues Over Unprotected Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEBESTIEN OWENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
d/b/a ATRIUM HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00851 (W.D.N.C.,
September 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients
stored within its network systems following a data breach in or
around April 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, doing business as
Atrium Health, is a healthcare organization and hospital network
based in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N. Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
CHARTER FOODS: CMC in Knighten 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-00168 (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=bZt90w at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHELSEA PINES: Chavez Bid for Default Judgment Nixed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH T. CHAVEZ, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CHELSEA
PINES, INC. d/b/a CHELSEA PINES INN, Case No. 1:23-cv-03433-FB-CLP
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order adopting
the Report and Recommendation (R&R) without de novo review.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is dismissed
without
prejudice and with leave to renew once the deficiencies
described above have been addressed.
-- If Plaintiff seeks to renew his motion for default judgment,
he
is encouraged to ensure all necessary supporting papers are
provided, and that the claims set out in Plaintiff’s papers
are
not inconsistent with each other.
On May 7, 2023, Plaintiff Kenneth Chavez commenced this action, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against
Chelsea.
The Plaintiff asserts that Chelsea Pines, which operates a hotel,
failed to provide information on its websites identifying whether
accessible features are present in the hotel's common areas and
guestrooms, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On Aug. 5, 2024, Magistrate Judge Pollak issued the R&R
recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion without
prejudice and with leave to renew.
Magistrate Pollack’s R&R gave the parties fourteen days to file
objections, i.e., until Aug. 19, 2024, and warned that "failure to
file objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the District Court’s order."
No error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DqAB4u at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL S. SEGAL, P.C.
1149 Northern Boulevard., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 1003
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces Class Suit Over PFAS in Trojan Condoms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetic News, reports that a
class action is launched over PFAS in Trojan condoms.
THE WHAT? A proposed class action has been filed in Manhattan
federal court alleging that Trojan condoms are not safe following a
study that found high levels of PFAS in the Church & Dwight-owned
brand’s contraceptives.
THE DETAILS According to a report published by Reuters, Trojan
failed to disclose the presence of so-called forever chemicals on
the label and the plaintiff would not have purchased the products
had he been aware of this.
THE WHY? The lawsuit seeks at least US$5 million in damages for
purchasers of Trojan condoms nationwide, Reuters reveals. The
manufacturer did not immediately respond to comment when contacted
by Reuters.
CLEAN RITE: Singleton and Cedano Sue Over Cards' Misrepresentations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE SINGLETON and DAYAIRA CEDANO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CLEAN RITE CENTERS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06454 (E.D.N.Y., September 13,
2024), seeks redress for Defendant's practice of misrepresenting
the value of these Laundry Cards.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's Laundry Cards include unfair
and deceptive conditions that are only revealed to customers after
the point of sale, or never revealed at all. They assert that
Defendant does not reveal the non-refundability of these remainder
balances until after a customer has already committed to purchasing
a Laundry Card. This refund policy, in conjunction with
Defendant’s policies that result in users occasionally needing to
purchase new cards, causes Clean Rite customers to accumulate
countless Laundry Cards with balances that are all inaccessible.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert claims for fraudulent omission,
and for violations of the New York General Business Law and the
Electronic Fund Transfers Act.
Headquartered in Rego Park, NY, Clean Rite Centers, LLC operates
laundromats throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
COMPASS MINERALS: Response to Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOCAL 295 IBT EMPLOYER
GROUP WELFARE FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. COMPASS MINERALS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et
al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02432-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel
Mitchell entered an amended scheduling order:
Event Deadline/Setting
Expiration of discovery stay: Nov. 20, 2024
Response to motion for class certification Dec. 16, 2024
and responsive expert disclosures:
Reply to class certification and rebuttal Jan. 27, 2025
expert disclosures:
Fact discovery completed: Feb. 28, 2025
All other experts disclosed: March 14, 2025
Rebuttal experts (on non-class certification April 14, 2025
issues) disclosed:
Expert discovery completed: May 9, 2025
Proposed pretrial order due: May 23, 2025
Pretrial conference: June 2, 2025
Potentially dispositive motions (e.g., July 3, 2025
summary judgment):
All other provisions of the original Scheduling Order remain in
effect. The schedule adopted in this First Amended Scheduling Order
shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of
good cause. The court once again cautions the parties that it will
be highly disinclined to grant any further extensions of these
deadlines. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the joint motion for
temporary stay and modification of the scheduling order (ECF 91) is
granted. Dated September 16, 2024, at Kansas City, Kansas.
Compass produces salt, plant nutrients and magnesium chloride for
distribution primarily in North America.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q4hWDE at no extra
charge.[CC]
CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Falcon Sensor Design
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 29, 2024, that on August 19, 2024, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in
federal court in the Western District of Texas alleging, among
other things, negligence in the design and testing of their
"Falcon" sensor and tortious interference between certain airline
customers and their airline.
The complainants seek certification of a nationwide class (or
alternatively a class of Iowa citizens) who had a flight delayed or
canceled on a specified airline during a specific period of time
and are seeking unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys'
fees.
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. is a global cybersecurity company that
delivers cybersecurity's AI-native platform for the XDR era,
purpose-built to stop breaches using a unified platform that
provides cloud-delivered protection of endpoints, cloud workloads,
identity, and data via a software as a service subscription-based
model.
CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Suit in Texas Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 29, 2024, that on July 30, 2024, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company and
certain of the company's officers in federal court in the Western
District of Texas alleging violations of federal securities laws,
including that the defendants made false or misleading statements.
The complainants seek certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired its securities during specified
periods of time and are seeking unspecified monetary damages, costs
and attorneys' fees.
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. is a global cybersecurity company that
delivers cybersecurity's AI-native platform for the XDR era,
purpose-built to stop breaches using a unified platform that
provides cloud-delivered protection of endpoints, cloud workloads,
identity, and data via a software as a service subscription-based
model.
CRUNCH HOLDINGS: Pania Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAMILLE PANIA and RASHIYA ALNURRIDIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CRUNCH HOLDINGS, LLC,
CRUNCH FRANCHISING, LLC, CRUNCH, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-07127 (S.D.N.Y., September 19, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' practice of sending
unsolicited prerecorded calls to consumers' cellular telephone
numbers, including the Plaintiffs' numbers, in an attempt to
promote their products and services. Neither of the Plaintiffs nor
any members of the Class provided the Defendants prior express
written consent authorizing them to make calls that contained
prerecorded voices selling or marketing products or services to
their cellular telephone numbers. As a result of the Defendants'
telephonic sales calls, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered
damages.
Crunch Holdings, LLC is a company that franchised and owned fitness
clubs, with a principal place of business at 386 Park Avenue South,
Floor 15, New York, New York.
Crunch Franchising, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Crunch
Holdings, LLC, located at 1109 Second Avenue, New York, New York.
Crunch LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Crunch Holdings, LLC,
located at Old Chelsea Station, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elliot O. Jackson, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
Email: ejackson@hedinllp.com
- and -
Tyler K. Somes, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1100 15th Street NW, Ste. 04-108
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 900-3332
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
Email: tsomes@hedinllp.com com
- and -
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 4, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO CONRIQUEZ, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., a Missouri
corporation; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California
corporation; INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-02734-RFL (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order as follows:
1. All dates relating to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification will be continued as follows:
a. The Parties' certification expert disclosures shall be due
on
Feb. 28, 2025;
b. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be
due
on April 4, 2025;
c. Defendant's opposition to the motion for class
certification
shall be due on June 2, 2025;
d. The Plaintiffs' Reply in support of the Motion for Class
Certification shall be due on Aug. 1, 2025; and
e. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
shall be continued to Aug. 19, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
In light of the length of the extension and the length of this
case, no further extensions to this schedule shall be granted
absent extraordinary circumstances.
Cushman is a full-service global commercial real estate company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nXzo82 at no extra
charge.[CC]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Ervin Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN ERVIN, et al., v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-03678-RDM (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
-- granting motion for an enlargement of time to file their motion
for class certification, and
-- granting leave for them to conduct per-certification discovery
after the Court resolves any motion to dismiss.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7(f), the Plaintiffs sought the consent of
opposing counsel for this motion, and Defendant does not consent to
the relief requested.
The third Plaintiff files similar claims on her own behalf.
Collectively, the Plaintiffs allege that their employer, District
of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), has maintained a
work environment and culture of disbelieving women when they
complain of sexual harassment, that MPD intentionally maintained
policies and practices in its EEO Department that caused
complainants to be discredited and ignored, and that women who did
complain were systematically retaliated against.
The Plaintiffs further assert that while these customs, policies
and practices affected all women at MPD, they particularly and
disproportionately affected African American women, who faced
discrimination based on both their race and gender.
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9tTvYn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Pamela M. Keith, Esq.
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE
650 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 800-0292
E-mail: pamkeith@centerforemploymentjustice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christina Okereke, Esq.
Samantha Lewis, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
400 6th St. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 727-9624
E-mail: Steven.Rubenstein3@dc.gov
Samantha.Lewis1@dc.gov
ENERGY FOR ALL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suarez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN SUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Energy for All, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06929 (S.D.N.Y., September 13, 2024), arises from
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff alleges that the website contains significant access
barriers that make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired
users to even complete a transaction on the website. Despite
readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to
rely on an exclusively visual interface that only sighted customers
can independently browse, select, and buy online without the
assistance of others. Moreover, by failing to make the website
accessible to blind persons, the Defendant is violating basic equal
access requirements under both the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, says the suit.
Energy for All, LLC owns, maintains and/or operates its website,
Chargeasap.com, which provides consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including, the ability to view chargers, power
banks, magnetic charging cables, travel chargers and gadgets, USB
cables, wallets. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Bldv., Suite 404
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
EVANSTON, IL: Judicial Watch Asks Court to Reject Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial Watch announced that it asked a court to reject a motion
by the City of Evanston, IL, to dismiss Judicial Watch's class
action lawsuit on behalf of six individuals over the city's use of
race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program which
makes $25,000 direct cash payments to black residents and
descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the
years 1919 and 1969.
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Flinn et al. v
Evanston (No. 1:24-cv-04269)).
Judicial Watch alleges in the complaint that the program violates
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. In response to the city's motion to dismiss, Judicial
Watch argues that the case should continue to go forward because:
Plaintiffs have alleged all facts necessary to state a timely claim
that, but for their race, they are eligible to participate in the
program and receive $25,000 direct cash payments. The program's
eligibility requirements are simple, straightforward, and easy to
satisfy, and Plaintiffs have alleged that they were and are "ready
and able" to satisfy them at all relevant times. They need not
allege anything more to invoke this Court's jurisdiction.
[T]he program's use of a race-based eligibility requirement is
presumptively unconstitutional, and remedying societal
discrimination is not a compelling government interest. Nor has
remedying discrimination from as many as 105 years ago or remedying
intergenerational discrimination ever been recognized as a
compelling government interest. Among the program's other fatal
flaws is that it uses race as a proxy for discrimination without
requiring proof of discrimination.
"Evanston's reparations scheme rejects a colorblind Constitution
and unconstitutionally discriminates against anyone who does not
identify as black or African American. The court should allow
Judicial Watch's class action, civil rights lawsuit to move
forward," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
Judicial Watch is being assisted in the lawsuit by Christine
Svenson of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC.
Judicial Watch lawsuits challenging unconstitutional discrimination
are extensive.
On January 29, 2024, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of
San Francisco taxpayers over a city program that discriminates in
favor of biological black and Latino men who identify as women in
the distribution of tax money. The lawsuit was filed after Judicial
Watch earlier forced the release of records from the City of San
Francisco showing the city prioritized tax money for black and
Latino transgenders (biological men) in the Guaranteed Income for
Trans People program.
In December 2023, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court's ruling and allowed Judicial Watch's historic lawsuit filed
on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer over a teachers' contract that
provides discriminatory job protections to certain racial
minorities to proceed.
The City of Asheville, NC, in January 2022 settled a Judicial Watch
federal civil rights lawsuit after agreeing to remove all racially
discriminatory provisions in a city-funded scholarship program.
Additionally, the city also agreed to remove racially
discriminatory eligibility provisions in a related program that
provides grants to educators.
In May 2022, Judicial Watch won a court battle against California's
gender quota law for corporate boards. The verdict came after a
28-day trial. The verdict followed a similar ruling in Judicial
Watch's favor in April finding California's race, ethnicity and
LGBT quotas or corporate boards unconstitutional. [GN]
FANSHAWE COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Wide-Spread Negligence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sawyer Bogdan of Global News reports that hundreds of current and
former students enrolled in Fanshawe College's paralegal program
are suing the school for "wide-spread negligence and
misrepresentation."
A proposed class-action lawsuit for more than $10 million has been
launched in the Superior Court of Justice, naming Ontario's
Fanshawe College and its board of governors.
The claim seeks damages on behalf of hundreds of students enrolled
in the college's paralegal program since 2020.
None of the allegations have been proven in court.
The claim includes past, current and international students
alleging widespread negligence, extensive negligent
misrepresentations and breaches of Ontario's Consumer Protection
Act.
The lawsuit alleges that the college has repeatedly failed to meet
the requirements of the Law Society Ontario, leaving students
unprepared for licensing examinations and legal practice.
"As students, we were told the instructors were properly
qualified," said Isabel Koestner, one of the proposed
representative plaintiffs.
"We were told they held master's certifications. It has turned out
these were 'online courses' of a few weeks. We were told they had
experience. It has turned out, for example, they had only recently
graduated themselves, and their main experience was teaching
yoga."
Another proposed representative plaintiff, Tony Trus, says they
were told more than 75 per cent of graduates were working within
six months. Through the use of artificial intelligence, he claims
the actual number is more like four per cent.
The claim alleges numerous failures to report major changes to the
program and make annual declarations and failure to follow academic
and field placement requirements.
It also alleges that the college failed to meet minimum
instructional hours, meet faculty qualification requirements and
teach, properly or at all, the more than 300 required
competencies.
The lawsuit claims many of these concerns were identified during a
2018 audit by the Law Society of Ontario, but the college and its
board failed to address them.
"Given how vulnerable they are, the claim also raises particular
concerns regarding the treatment of international students by
Fanshawe College," said Eric Gillespie, counsel for the proposed
class.
"This is a national issue that governments and the public have been
raising for some time. Our clients believe it is time to address
it. Fanshawe College unfortunately appears to be a prime example of
students not being treated fairly."
The claim will now move forward toward certification.
In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Fanshawe College
says they do not comment on any ongoing legal proceedings or
issues.
"We are very proud of our track record of high-quality education
and student experience for students across the globe," the
spokesperson's said. [GN]
FIAT CHRYSLER: Settlement Deal in Hall Class Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD HALL, individually
and on behalf of the general public and all others similarly
situated, v. FIAT CHRYSLER AMERICA US LLC aka FCA US LLC, formerly
known as CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
8:21-cv-00762-SSS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes
entered an order granting preliminary approval of settlement
agreement.
-- The terms of the Settlement Agreement dated June 18, 2024, are
preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, are
sufficient to warrant sending notice to the Class, and are
subject to further consideration.
-- The Court provisionally certifies the following Class for
settlement purposes only (the "Class"):
"All persons in California who purchased a lifetime vehicle
service contract for a Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep branded
vehicle,
and had the contract terminated based on their failure to
comply
with the inspection terms of the lifetime limited powertrain
warranty covering the vehicle."
Excluded from this class are all persons who timely and
properly
exclude themselves from the Class as provided in this Order.
-- The Court preliminarily finds, for settlement purposes only
and
conditioned upon the entry of this Order and the Final Order
and
Final Judgment, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the
occurrence of the Final Effective Date, that the Class meets
all
the applicable requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a) and
(b)(3),
and hereby provisionally certifies the Class for settlement
purposes only.
-- The Court designates the following plaintiff as Class
Representative: Donald Hall.
-- The Court further preliminarily finds that the following
counsel
fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class for
settlement purposes and appoints them as counsel for the Class
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(g):
Michael J. Trotter, Esq.
Steven J. Wysocky, Esq.
KELLY, TROTTER & FRANZEN
111 W. Ocean Blvd., 14th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90801
On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff Hall, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed the instant motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement, conditional certification,
approval of class notice, and setting of final approval hearing.
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, distributes and sells
vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SfdZSs at no extra
charge.[CC]
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Faces Stamnes Class Suit Over Solar Panel Systems
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM STAMNES, BRUCE MCGEOCH, EUNICE MCCALLUM, JOAN RAMOS,
STEPHEN CLOUSER, DAVID KLINGLER, KENNETH HERRINGTON, and JAMES
YOUNG individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and DIVIDEND
FINANCE INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01504 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 18, 2024)
contends that the Defendants' conduct has saddled thousands of
homeowners throughout the United States with tens of thousands of
dollars of oppressive debt taken out for the purchase of what
turned out to be non-functioning, non-permitted Solar Panel Systems
installed on their residences in addition to extensive damage of
the homes of the Plaintiffs and members of the Class caused by the
work of un-licensed or inadequately licensed contractors used by
Vision Solar.
The suit arose from the Defendants' unfair, unlawful, and deceptive
business practices undertaken in connection with the origination
and servicing of thousands of loans taken out by borrowers to
purchase residential solar photovoltaic systems ("Solar Panel
System(s)") for their homes during from 2018 to the present.
The Plaintiffs and members of the Class thus seek relief from the
Defendants in the form of restitution, disgorgement of profits,
rescission of the sales and financing agreements, and damages.
Fifth Third is a chartered bank organized under the laws of
Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua S. Horton, Esq.
THE JOSHUA S. HORTON LAW FIRM, PA
107 Pond Apple Lane # 102
Jupiter, FL 33458
Telephone: (561) 764-4041
Facsimile: (561) 584-5212
E-mail: josh@joshuahortonlaw.com
FIVE BELOW INC: Securities Suit Ongoing in Pennsylvania Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Five Below, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended August 3, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 29, 2024, that on August 1, 2024, a putative
class action was filed against Five Below, Inc. and a certain
former senior officer in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on behalf of a class
of the company's investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities between March 20, 2024 and July 16,
2024.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder in connection with various public
statements.
Five Below, Inc. is a specialty value retailer offering merchandise
targeted at the "tween" and "teen" demographic. It offers an edited
assortment of products, with most priced at $5 and below.
FIVE BELOW: Faces Police Class Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF ORLANDO POLICE OFFICERS' PENSION FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIVE BELOW, INC., JOEL
ANDERSON, KENNETH BULL, and KRISTY CHIPMAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-04905
(E.D. Pa., Sept. 16, 2024) is a securities class action on behalf
of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Five Below
common stock between Dec. 1, 2022, and July 16, 2024, inclusive,
against Five Below and certain of the Company's current and former
senior executives, arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder.
During the Class Period, Five Below executives repeatedly affirmed
the Company's ability to execute on trend-right products, and often
attributed pressure on earnings to shrink and macroeconomic
factors. These assurances were false. In truth, Five Below was
struggling to identify and capitalize on trending products, and the
Company's growth plan was stalling, the suit says.
As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations, shares of Five
Below common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period. The truth began to emerge on March 20, 2024, when
the Company reported fourth quarter 2023 results and missed
Earnings Per Share ("EPS") analyst consensus by $0.13 per share, or
approximately 3.5%.
On June 5, 2024, Five Below released its first quarter 2024 results
and disclosed a nearly 15% year-over-year decline in operating
income.
Then, on July 16, 2024, after the market closed, Five Below
announced the sudden departure of its Chief Executive Officer,
Defendant Anderson, effective immediately, and further reduced its
net sales and earnings guidance, which had already been severely
cut just weeks prior. These disclosures caused the Company's stock
price to decline by another $25.57 per share, or 25%.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
The Plaintiff is a single-employer, defined benefit public pension
fund. The Plaintiff manages approximately $700 million in assets
for the benefit of its approximately 1,700 active and retired
participants.
Five Below is an "extreme value" retailer offering merchandise
targeted at the "tween" and teen demographic. Five Below offers an
edited assortment of popular, or "trend-right" merchandise, with
most of its products priced at or below $5.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Joshua Keszczyk, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
rdegnan@ktmc.com
jkeszczyk@ktmc.com
- and -
Hannah Ross, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com
- and -
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq.
KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN
& LEVINSON
7080 Northwest 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
stu@robertdklausner.com
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Parties Must File Written Case Status Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREY SMITH-JOURNIGAN, et
al., individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, Case No. 2:18-cv-00328-MHW-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey Vascura entered an order
directing the parties to file a joint written report detailing the
status of the case, and proposing next steps for completing
discovery and filing class certification and dispositive motions,
within fourteen days of the date of the Order.
The Plaintiffs filed a Discovery Update on March 4, 2024, in which
Plaintiff represented that a discovery dispute had arisen, and that
Plaintiffs intended to seek guidance from the Court regarding a
possible order compelling production.
However, there has been no further activity on the docket
(excepting a motion and order for an attorney to appear pro hac
vice) since that time.
Franklin County is a county in the U.S. state of Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s5pVwM at no extra
charge.[CC]
FRICKER'S USA: Hyde Bid for Equitable Tolling OK'd
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXUS HYDE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. FRICKER'S USA, LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00591-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Jeffrey Hopkins entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion
for equitable tolling.
Accordingly, the scope of discovery and tolling shall be as
follows. The parties shall have 90 days to conduct limited
discovery; all discovery pursued shall be "'narrowly tailored' to
the sole question of whether there is a 'strong likelihood' that
potential opt-in plaintiffs show a 'substantial similarity' to the
named plaintiff."
The Plaintiff shall have until the end of that 90-day period to
file her anticipated Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court-Facilitated Notice to Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs.
If court-facilitated notice is granted, the statute of limitations
on the claims of potential opt-in plaintiffs shall run until 60
days after notice is mailed to putative class members.
With these limitations, the Plaintiff's request for equitable
tolling of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA's) statute of
limitations for potential opt-in plaintiffs.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qLzmvn at no extra
charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 27, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY HARRISON, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-12927-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Laurie Michelson entered an order granting agreed
modifications to the pretrial schedule in the scheduling order:
Specifically, the Parties propose all deadlines be extended by 3
months.
The Parties believe this short extension of time is appropriate to
allow the Parties to complete written discovery, document
productions, vehicle inspections, and depositions, including to
resolve Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6)
notice of deposition, conduct that deposition and others without
the scheduling difficulties of the intervening holidays, and
complete the Parties' respective expert reports.
The Parties have conferred and believe that this extension request
is especially appropriate given that several arbitration matters of
certain Plaintiffs' claims, which were stayed pursuant to the
Court's Opinion and Order Granting in Part GM's Motion to Compel
Arbitration, are still pending and may be reinstated in this
matter.
Event Current New
Deadline
Deadline
Fact Discovery Completed Nov. 15, 2024 Feb. 17,
2025
Deadline for Plaintiffs to Dec. 16, 2024 Mar. 17,
2025
Identify Experts and Serve
Expert Reports in Support of
Class Certification
Deadline for GM to Identify Feb. 14, 2025 May 14,
2025
Experts and Serve Expert Reports
in Opposition to Class
Certification
Expert Discovery for Class Apr. 14, 2025 July 14,
2025
Certification Completed
Deadline for Plaintiffs to File May 27, 2025 Aug. 27,
2025
Motion for Class Certification
Deadline for GM's Opposition to July 8, 2025 Oct. 8,
2025
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and GM's Daubert
Motions re: Plaintiffs' Class
Certification Experts
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=17azHZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
Dana E. Fraser, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
def@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Abigail Gertner, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
Natalie Lesser, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
apark@bm.net
nlesser@bm.net
- and -
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelaywers.com
Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Steven Calamusa, Esq.
Geoffrey Stahl, Esq.
Rachel Bentley, Esq.
GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
4114 Northlake Blvd.,
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 799-5070
Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
gstahl@fortheinjured.com
rbentley@fortheinjured.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Susan M. Clare, Esq.
Adam Reinke, Esq.
J. Franklin Sacha, Jr., Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
E-mail: sclare@kslaw.com
areinke@kslaw.com
fsacha@kslaw.com
- and -
Justin B. Weiner, Esq.
Andrew M. Mas, Esq.
BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC
100 W. Big Beaver, Suite 400
Troy, MI 48084
Telephone: (248) 822-7800
E-mail: weiner@bsplaw.com
mast@bsplaw.com
- and -
Laura C. Baucus, Esq.
Michael P. Cooney, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
39577 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 203-0700
E-mail: lbaucus@dykema.com
mcooney@dykema.com
GENWORTH LIFE: Class Cert. Hearing in Silverstein Set for Oct. 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin Silverstein, v.
Genworth Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00684-DJN (E.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- Preliminarily Settlement and Class Certification Hearing for
Oct.
10, 2024, at 2:00 p.m.
Genworth provides life, health, and disability insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0kjkOK at no extra
charge.[CC]
GKN DRIVELINE: Ferges Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMEKA FERGES and DARRICK
PAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00585-LCB-LP
(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 Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 13, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vR29xl 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
GOLDCO DIRECT: Filing for Bid Class Cert Bid Due March 13, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN SUMMERTON, v. GOLDCO
DIRECT LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00238-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge
Anita Marie Boor entered an order resetting the schedule as
follows:
-- Disclosure of Experts
Plaintiffs: Jan. 13, 2025
Defendants: Feb. 11, 2025
-- Deadline for filing motions and briefs March 13, 2025
to certify/decertify:
-- Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions
response/reply briefing: Sept. 9, 2025
Discovery Cutoff: Jan. 16, 2026
Settlement Letters: Jan. 16, 2026
-- Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and motions Jan. 30, 2026
in limine:
Responses: Feb. 20, 2026
-- First Final Pretrial Conference: March 11, 2026
-- Second Final Pretrial Conference: March 18, 2026
Goldco is a precious metals provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4jZhBA at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 2, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE CHING INSURANCE,
INC., et al., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Case No. 8:23-cv-03033-PJM (D. Md.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting joint motion to enter a revised schedule:
Requirement Date
Moving for joinder of additional parties and Sept. 27, 2024
amendment of pleadings
Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures Oct. 4, 2024
Rule 26(f) conference; discovery commences Oct. 4, 2024
Joint request for early settlement/ ADR March 1, 2025
conference
Substantial-completion deadline, including March 1, 2025
provision of affidavits
Plaintiffs' 26(a)(2) disclosures, including April 2, 2025
expert report(s)
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification April 2, 2025
Defendants' 26(a)(2) disclosures, including July 2, 2025
expert report(s)
Defendants' response in opposition to the July 2, 2025
motion for class certification
Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for Oct. 2, 2025
class certification
Hearing on motion for class certification Dec. 18, 2025
Government Employees provides motorcycle, ATV, RV, boat,
snowmobile, travel, pet, event, homeowner, renter, and jewelry
insurance options.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Xaeyw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
John Tangren, Esq.
Eaghan S. Davis, Esq.
Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman, Esq.
Eli Hare, Esq.
Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
Éviealle J. Dawkins, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
10 North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
edavis@dicellolevitt.com
fu@dicellolevitt.com
ehare@dicellolevitt.com
kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
jhawal@dicellolevitt.com
edawkins@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Benjamin Crump, Esq.
Gabrielle Higgins, Esq.
Brendan H. Chandonnet, Esq.
BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC
122 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Telephone: (800) 691-7111
E-mail: ben@bencrump.com
gabrielle@bencrump.com
brendan@bencrump.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Zohn, Esq.
Justin Donoho, Esq.
Kiana Givpoor, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 499-6700
Facsimile: (312) 499-6701
E-mail: gmaatman@duanemorris.com
jariley@duanemorris.com
jzohn@duanemorris.com
jrdonoho@duanemorris.com
kgivpoor@duanemorris.com
GUARD FORCE: Oral Argument on Bid to Certify Class Set for Oct. 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carey v. Guard Force
International, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-21942 (S.D. Fla., Filed May
21, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Becerra entered an order
setting oral argument:
-- Oral argument on Plaintiff's motion to certify class, and
Defendant's motion for extension of time, is set for Oct. 8,
2024,
at 2:30 p.m.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).C]
HAIN CELESTIAL: Dismissal of SAC Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 27, 2024, that on September 29, 2023,
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint. Co-Lead plaintiffs filed notice of appeal on October 26,
2023, appealing the district court's decision dismissing the second
amended complaint to the Second Circuit. A securities class action
complaint captioned "Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et
al." was filed in the said court on August 17, 2016 alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The appeal is fully briefed as of June 3, 2024.
On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, these complaints were
consolidated under the caption "In re The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation" and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon
Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.
The co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities action filed
a consolidated amended complaint on August 4, 2017 and a corrected
consolidated amended complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5,
2013 and February 10, 2017. It named as defendants the company and
certain of its former officers and asserted violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions
in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the
company's business, prospects, financial results and internal
controls.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
October 3, 2017 which the District Court granted on March 29, 2019,
dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead.
Co-lead plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action
complaint on May 6, 2019. It again named as defendants the company
and certain of its former officers and asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations similar to those in the amended complaint,
including materially false or misleading statements and omissions
in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the
company's business, prospects, financial results, and internal
controls.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on June 20, 2019. On April 6, 2020, the District Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss it in its entirety, with prejudice.
Co-lead plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision
dismissing it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. By decision dated December 17, 2021, the Second Circuit
vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for
further proceedings. On April 6, 2022, the District Court issued an
order directing the parties to submit position papers outlining
their views regarding: (a) the scope of the Court's reconsideration
of defendants' Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint; and
(b) the appropriate procedure the court should follow in light of
the Second Circuit's opinion.
On April 14, 2022, the District Court entered an order setting the
schedule for, and determining the scope of, supplemental briefing
on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint. The
parties submitted supplemental briefing between May 12, 2022 and
June 23, 2022. In June 2022, the District Court referred
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint to a
United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation.
On November 4, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the District Court grant
defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with
prejudice. Plaintiffs filed objections to Magistrate Judge's
November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on December 7, 2022, and
Defendants filed their Opposition to plaintiffs' objections to
Magistrate Judge's November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on
January 9, 2023.
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(collectively, along with its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer,
marketer and seller of food and beverages through specialty and
natural food distributors, supermarkets, natural food stores,
mass-market and e-commerce retailers, food service channels and
club, drug and convenience stores worldwide.
HARVEY NORMAN: Faces Class Action Over Extended Warranties
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline So, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that Echo
Law has filed a class action in the Federal Court against Harvey
Norman, Domayne and Joyce Mayne on behalf of customers who were
reportedly sold "unnecessary and worthless" extended warranties.
The suit covers consumers who purchased Harvey Norman's Product
Care warranties between 17 September 2018 and the present.
According to the firm, the warranties, which are offered when
customers buy electronics and whitegoods, do not provide additional
protection to customers; they are already entitled to the rights
and remedies therein under the Australian Consumer Law.
Based on product type and coverage length, customers have generally
been charged 10%-40% of the product price for a Product Care
warranty, the firm said.
"Harvey Norman has been making its customers pay extra for rights
that they already have for free. It's a practice that is hugely
profitable for the retailer", Echo Law senior associate Dr Lauren
Meath said. "We allege Harvey Norman breached the law by engaging
in misleading or deceptive conduct as well as unconscionable
conduct, by leading customers to believe that the extended warranty
would give them additional protection they would not have otherwise
had."
The class action aims to obtain compensation for customers that
includes refunds with interest. Harvey Norman's revenue from
selling Product Care is unknown based on its financial reports, but
the firm's estimation is that customers have forked over "hundreds
of millions" in the period delineated by the suit.
Litigation funder CASL is backing the suit.
"This case is an example of how class actions are an important
enforcement mechanism for Australia's consumer protection laws",
CASL senior litigation manager Siobhan Moore said.
The ACCC had previously raised concerns regarding Product Care and
had highlighted problems with selling practices and potentially
misleading conduct in relation to how much overlap there was with
customers' existing rights under the Australian Consumer Law. [GN]
HAWAII LOUNGE: Faces Jimenez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO CARLOS PERALTA JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAWAII LOUNGE & TAPAS BAR
INC. (D/B/A HAWAII LOUNGE AND TAPAS BAR), QUIET BAR RESTAURANT LLC
(D/B/A HAWAII LOUNGE AND TAPAS BAR), and RAFAEL ADORNO A.K.A.
OSCAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07129 (S.D.N.Y., September 19,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide wage notice,
failure to provide wage statements, and failure to pay timely
wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Hawaii Lounge and
Tapas Bar from approximately March 14, 2022, until on or about
September 12, 2023.
Hawaii Lounge & Tapas Bar Inc., doing business as Hawaii Lounge and
Tapas Bar, is a bar owner and operator located at 400 E. 180th
Street, Bronx, New York.
Quiet Bar Restaurant LLC, doing business as Hawaii Lounge and Tapas
Bar, is a bar owner and operator located at 400 E. 180th Street,
Bronx, New York. [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
HEALTH INSURANCE: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMED JAFFERY, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HEALTH
INSURANCE PLAN OF GREATER NEW YORK, Case No. 1:23-cv-00522-BKS-DJS
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brenda Sannes entered an order denying
the Defendant's motion to strike the class allegations in the
Amended Complaint.
The case is referred to Judge Stewart to frame adequate class
discovery before the case proceeds to the class certification
stage.
The Plaintiff recognizes that his proposed class definition may
require some modification "based on information revealed in
discovery," but he argues that in light of the numerous cases that
have certified relatively similar classes, it is not impossible to
certify a TCPA class here. The Court agrees with the Plaintiff.
The Defendant's motion will be denied, and the Defendant can press
its arguments challenging class certification at the certification
stage.
Furthermore, granting Defendant's motion would not resolve the
challenged issues because "if the Court were to dismiss the
plaintiff's class allegations at this time, the plaintiff would be
given an opportunity to replead." The motion is denied and the
matter is referred to Judge Stewart to frame adequate class
discovery before the case proceeds to the class certification
stage.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the
Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
The Plaintiff alleges that starting in or around October 2020, and
in an attempt to reach David Jennings—a person whom Mr. Jaffery
does not know—Defendant began placing calls to Mr. Jaffery's
cellular telephone number.
The Plaintiff brings this case as a proposed class action pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b) on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated. He defines the proposed
class as:
"All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Health
Insurance Plan of Greater New York placed, or caused to be
placed,
a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular
telephone
service, (3) in connection with which Health Insurance Plan of
Greater New York used an artificial or prerecorded Case
1:23-cv-
00522-BKS-DJS Document 38 Filed 09/18/24 Page 3 of 10 4 voice,
(4)
from August 8, 2019 through the date of class certification, (5)
where the call regarded an account or plan that did not belong
to
the call recipient."
Defendant files a reply.
The Defendant is an insurance company that serves customers in New
York and Connecticut.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=izw5cc at no extra
charge.[CC]
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: Chen Appeals Dismissal of Assault Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
GRACE CHEN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Grace Chen, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Hillsdale College, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01129, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
The Plaintiffs bring this action to hold Hillsdale College
accountable for its failure to address sexual assault cases
reported by the Plaintiffs and similarly situated students in
violation of the common law, the Michigan Elliot Larsen Civil
Rights Act (ELCRA), and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.
On Dec. 21, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim.
On Dec. 22, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to strike class
allegations.
On Jan. 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On Jan. 18, 2024, the Court dismissed the Defendant's motion to
dismiss as moot through an Order entered by Judge Jane M.
Beckering.
On Feb. 1, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
On Feb. 14, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to strike
complaint.
On Sept. 13, 2024, Judge Beckering granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss, and dismissed as moot the Defendant's motion to
strike.
The appellate case is captioned Grace Chen, et al. v. Hillsdale
College, Case No. 24-1788, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, filed on September 18, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants GRACE CHEN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Annika K. Martin, Esq.
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
250 Hudson Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Defendant-Appellee HILLSDALE COLLEGE is represented by:
Carey A. DeWitt, Esq.
BUTZEL LONG
41000 Woodward Avenue
Stoneridge West Building
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 258-1616
- and –
Allyson Newton Ho, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 698-3100
ILLINOIS BONE: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Holovaty Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN HOLOVATY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. ILLINOIS BONE & JOINT INSTITUTE,
LLC (IBJI), Case No. 1:24-cv-08499 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 16, 2024) sues
the Defendant for failure to protect and safeguard the Plaintiff's
and the Class's (approximately 182,670 individuals) highly
sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health
information.
The lawsuit says that IBJI confirmed after a forensic investigation
that an unauthorized third party accessed the IBJI network between
May 30, 2024, and July 4, 2024, and acquired certain files during
this period. The Private Information stolen in the Data Breach
included highly sensitive private information such as: names,
addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, diagnosis and
treatment information, and health insurance/claims information.
Now, and for the rest of their lives, the Plaintiff and the Class
Members will have to deal with the danger of identity thieves
possessing and misusing their Private Information, the suit
alleges.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will continue to
incur damages in the form of identity theft, attempted identity
theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms, increased risk of
harm, damaged credit, diminution of the value of their Private
Information, loss of privacy, and additional damages, the suit
adds.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and on
behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive
damages, nominal damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory
relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other
remedies this Court deems just and proper.
Mr. Holovaty is an individual domiciled in Des Plaines, IL. He
received a Notice of Data Breach Letter from IBJI dated August 30,
2024.
IBJI offers a full range of orthopedic care, including advanced MRI
imaging, pain management, non-surgical and surgical treatment
plans, rheumatology, physical therapy, occupational therapy,
wellness and sports training.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Nowling Suit Over Land Rovers' Radiator Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH NOWLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 2:24-cv-09184 (D.N.J., Sept.
16, 2024) alleges that the Defendant manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and sold 2018-2024 Land Rover Range Rover, 2018-2024
Land Rover Range Rover Velar, 2018-2024 Land Rover Range Rover
Sport, 2018-2024 Land Rover Discovery, and 2020-2024 Land Rover
Defender without disclosing the existence of a radiator defect that
jeopardizes the safety of Class Vehicle drivers, passengers, and
other drivers and pedestrians.
Accordingly, discovery will show that, since the beginning of 2018,
the Defendant has known that the Class Vehicles' radiator, radiator
hose, and related components were defective and would need frequent
repair, prematurely fail, require frequent replacement, including
replacements just outside of warranty, that the replacement
radiator, radiator hose, and related components installed would be
equally as defective as the originals, and that the radiator,
radiator hose, and related components would cause the symptoms of
the Radiator Defect.
Nevertheless, the Defendant continued to equip the Class Vehicles
with defective radiators, radiator hoses, and related components.
Moreover, the Defendant not only refused to disclose the alleged
Radiator Defect to consumers, but also it actively concealed, and
continues to conceal, its knowledge concerning the Radiator Defect,
the suit says.
The Defendant's alleged failure to disclose the Defect has caused
the Plaintiff and putative Class Members to lose the use of their
vehicles and/or incur costly repairs that have conferred an unjust
substantial benefit upon the Defendant.
In September 2023, the Plaintiff began to experience the Defect.
Specifically, coolant was leaking out of the Class Vehicle. The
Plaintiff took the Class Vehicle to an authorized JLRNA dealership,
where they performed repairs for which the Plaintiff had to pay out
of pocket.
On April 21, 2023, the Plaintiff purchased a used 2018 Land Rover
Range Rover from Land Rover Riverside, an authorized JLRNA
dealership located in Riverside, California.
JLRNA markets, distributes, warranties, and sells Land Rover and
Jaguar automobiles and parts for those automobiles, in multiple
locations across the United States including California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
Natalie Lesser, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: josterwise@bm.net
nlesser@bm.net
- and -
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Seiber Class Suit Over Defective Windshields
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Seiber, Chris Robinson, Pamela Hughes, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Jaguar Land Rover
North America, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-09194 (D.N.J., Sept. 16, 2024)
is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and proposed
classes of past and present owners and lessees of defective
2020-2022 Land Rover Defender vehicles marketed, distributed, sold,
warranted, and serviced by the Defendant.
The Windshield Defect poses an extreme safety hazard to drivers,
passengers, and pedestrians because a spontaneously shattering or
cracking windshield can impair the driver's view, distract the
driver, and result in dislodged glass that can injure drivers,
passengers and pedestrians, the Plaintiff contends.
Beginning as early as 2019 Land Rover knew that the Class Vehicles
contain one or more defects in the way the vehicles are
manufactured and/or made that can cause the windshield to crack,
chip and/or fracture. The Windshield Defect occurs due to either
deficient materials used to make the windshield itself and/or a
deficiency in the structure of the Class Vehicles, the suit says.
Class Vehicle owners report that their windshields failed for no
reason at all. Others have reported windshield failure as a result
of circumstances that would not cause a non-defective windshield to
fail, such as a very slight impact. Land Rover, however, has
allegedly refused to repair or replace the defective windshields in
the Class Vehicle under Land Rover's warranty, requiring that Class
Vehicle owners pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to repair the
Defect -- even where the Defect occurs nearly immediately after
Class Vehicle owners take possession of their vehicles.
In addition, the replacement windshields provided by Defendant
(which Class Vehicle owners must pay for out-of-pocket) are also
defective and as a result, Class Vehicle owners often must
repeatedly replace their windshields, the suit further asserts.
On Sept. 18, 2020, Mr. Seiber purchased a new 2020 Land Rover
Defender, Vehicle Identification Number SALE9EEU2L2014455 from
Hoehn JLR Inc.
Jaguar is an automobile company that distributes, markets,
services, warrants, repairs, sells and leases passenger vehicles --
designed and manufactured by Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC and
Jaguar Land Rover Limited.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
JARED RARDIN: Cheng Files Suit in D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jared Rardin. The
case is styled as Sheng-Wen Cheng, individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated v. Jared Rardin, in his
official capacity as Warden of FMC Rochester; Ethan Derr, in his
official capacity as Facility Manager of FMC Rochester; Chad Orum,
in his official capacity as Case Manager Coordinator of FMC
Rochester, Case No. 0:24-cv-03712-KMM-DLM (in D. Minn., Sept. 20,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Jared Rardin is the as Warden of FMC Rochester.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
JOEY BUILDERS: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joey Builders
Incorporated. The case is styled as Darren MacDonald, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Joey Builders
Incorporated, Case No. 2:24-cv-02501-MTL (D. Ariz., Sept. 19,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Joey Builders Inc. -- https://joeybuilders.com/ -- employs
innovative architecture and modern construction techniques to
create dynamic home environments that cater to diverse needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathanael Melvin Brown, Esq.
BROWN PATENT LAW
15100 N 78th Way, Ste. 203
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Phone: (602) 529-3474
Email: nathan.brown@brownpatentlaw.com
JP MORGAN: Canales Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------
Jamie Canales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
Case No. 5:24-cv-02018 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2024), is brought for
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, violations of New
York's General Business Law ("GBL") and, as to the California Sub
Class, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), to
recover damages arising out of Defendants' violations of the law,
and for such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
In its agreement with its customers, JP Morgan Securities
specifically acknowledges that it acts as its customers' fiduciary
"with respect to all transactions relating to" the "Bank Deposit
Sweep Program." Under the broad scope of the agency, "all
transactions relating to" the Program include the selection of the
banks to participate in the Program; the selection of the type of
accounts to which the Program applies; the selection of the type of
bank accounts in which the JP Morgan Securities customers' funds
are swept; the negotiation and agreement as to the interest rates
to be paid to JP Morgan Securities customers under the Program; and
the negotiation and agreement as to any compensation or the
foregoing of such compensation by JP Morgan Securities for the
benefit of either its customers or another entity, including the
Bank.
From 2018 through March 2019, and again from March 2022 onwards,
when the Federal Reserve began raising the target federal funds
rate, the reasonable value of swept cash consistently exceeded the
amounts paid by Defendants on sweep accounts. Comparable brokerages
such as Fidelity Investments, R.W. Baird, Robinhood, and Vanguard
Investments, which did not sweep cash to affiliated banks, but
rather swept cash to independent, unaffiliated banks, paid
substantially higher rates on swept cash, than Defendants paid. For
example, Fidelity paid retirement investors as much as 2.72% APY on
swept cash regardless of AUM, starting in August 2023, and R.W.
Baird paid retirement investors between 2.07% to 4.15% on swept
cash, depending on cash balances, as of September 8, 2023.
JP Morgan Securities breached its fiduciary duties when it placed
its customers' cash in low interest-bearing accounts held by its
own affiliates and then pocketed the unpaid interest as additional
profit. Worse, JP Morgan Securities failed to adequately disclose
to its customers that, as to the Program, it was essentially
providing a kickback to its own affiliates at its customers'
expense. Specifically, Defendants shortchanged their customers for
their and their affiliates' benefit by negotiating with the Bank
one sided transactions that swept cash into exceedingly
low-interest accounts. JP Morgan Securities failed to disclose and
discuss these conflicted transactions, much less obtain informed
consent from its customers and principals, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a customer of JP Morgan Securities and is a
resident and citizen of California.
JPMorgan Chase is a financial services firm based in the United
States with operations worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
JUSTWORKS INC: Hackshaw Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAYNER HACKSHAW, on behalf
of herself and all other persons similarly situated, v. JUSTWORKS
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02013-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and authorizing notice to
be issued to all persons similarly situated.
Justworks operates as a human resource technology company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vScnFw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David E. Byrnes, Esq.
Alexander Granovsky, Esq.
GRANOVSKY & SUNDARESH PLLC
48 Wall Street, 11th Fl.
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (646) 524-6001
E-mail: dbyrnes@g-s-law.com
ag@g-s-law.com
KAIZENCURE LLC: Shelat Seeks to Strike Class Affirmation Defenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JWAL SHELAT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KAIZENCURE LLC,
d/b/a CRAFTORIA, Case No. 3:24-cv-04696-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff, on Feb. 6, 2025, or at a time convenient for the Court,
before the Honorable Araceli Martinez-Olguin, will move the Court,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), for an order
striking certain affirmation defenses in the Defendant's Answer to
the Class Action Complaint.
On Aug. 28, 2024, the Defendant filed its Answer to the Class
Action Complaint. Defendant's Answer asserted 37 affirmative
defenses.
In an email dated Sept. 5, 2024, counsel for the Plaintiff
identified deficiencies with Defendant's pleading of the
affirmative defenses and indicated that the Defendant's affirmative
defenses were overbroad and misplaced, and indicated which ones the
Plaintiff would be moving to strike. The Defendant's lawyers did
not indicate that they would be withdrawing these affirmative
defenses.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E0KG2P at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
KEMPER SPORTS: Seals Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kemper Sports
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Kelli Seals, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kemper Sports
Management, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08668 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 19,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
KemperSports -- https://www.kempersports.com/ -- is a top golf
course management company for 40+ years, drives profits for
facilities with proven customized management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
KORIN INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Pollitt Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK POLLITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Korin, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-06480 (E.D.N.Y., Sept.
16, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://www.korin.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Korin
provides to their non-disabled customers through its website, the
lawsuit contends.
On Aug. 15, 2024, the Plaintiff was searching for a sharpening
stone for his new kitchen knife. He searched the internet and
discovered the Defendant's website. However, during his
exploration, the Plaintiff encountered numerous accessibility
issues that made his user experience challenging and he could not
finalize the purchase of the kitchen tool he intended. Amongst
other access barriers experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to
learn more information about showroom location and hours of
operation, compare prices and benefits and learn more information
about the goods and services in its physical location, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Korin's policies, practices, and procedures so that 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. Pollitt is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Korin specializes in high-quality Japanese culinary tools and
equipment including knives, sharpening stones, plates, bowls, sushi
tools, and glassware.[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
KRAFT HEINZ: Appeals Remand Order in Hortin Suit to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, LLC is taking an appeal from a court
order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand in 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
the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Robinson on
Sept. 17, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned Hortin, et al. v. Kraft Heinz Foods
Company, LLC, Case No. 24-5682, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 18, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 23,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 4, 2024;
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due December 4, 2024.
[BN]
LEAF HOME: Bid to Dismiss Lirones Class Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURAL LIRONES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LEAF HOME WATER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02087-BMB (N.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Bridget Brennan entered an order denying the
Defendant's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to certify
for interlocutory appeal.
The Court finds that this case is not an exceptional case
warranting certification for interlocutory appeal under section
1292(b).
The Plaintiff Lirones' class action complaint seeks "to stop the
Defendant from violating [the] Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") by placing unsolicited calls to phone numbers that are
registered on the National Do Not Call registry ('DNC') and from
continuing to call consumers who have asked for the calls to stop.
The Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2)
and 23(b)(3) and seeks certification of the following Classes:
-- Do Not Call Registry Class:
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior to
the
filing of this action through class certification (1) Defendant
LHWS called more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period,
(3) where the person's residential telephone number had been
listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty
days, (4) for substantially the same reason Defendant called
Plaintiff.
-- Internal Do Not Call Class:
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior to
the
filing of this action through class certification (1) Defendant
called their residential telephone line at least two times (2)
including at least once after the consumer had communicated
their
wish to not receive any further calls from the Defendant (3)
for
substantially the same reason Defendant called the Plaintiff."
On Jan. 23, 2024, the Defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss asserting that "Plaintiff has no claims as a matter of law
because she solely alleges calls to a cellular telephone number."
On May 10, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion and stayed
the case until the conclusion of the Supreme Court's October 2024
term.
Leaf Home provides water filtration and softener products.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fQdSM2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LENDINGTREE LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Jan. 10, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. LENDINGTREE,
LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00071-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
John Holcomb entered an order amending Amended Scheduling Order, as
follows:
Event Current Date New Date
Deadline to file Motion for Sept. 20, 2024 Jan. 10,
2025
Class Certification
Deadline to file Opposition to Oct. 25, 2024 Feb. 7,
2025
Motion for Class Certification
Deadline to file Reply for Class Nov. 8, 2024 Feb. 21,
2025
Certification
Hearing on Motion for Class Nov. 21, 2024, Mar. 20,
2025,
Certification at 10:00 a.m. at 10:00
a.
LendingTree provides online tools to aid consumers in their
financial decisions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Def80I at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIDO LABS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 13, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTY WALKER-SCHAUT, v.
LIDO LABS HOLDING COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-05944-BHS (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Benjamin Settle entered a scheduling order setting
discovery and class certification briefing schedule:
Event Deadline
Deadline to Join Additional Parties: Sept. 16, 2024
Deadline for Fact Discovery: Feb. 15, 2025
Deadline for Plaintiff's Expert Reports: March 16, 2025
Deadline for Defendant's Expert Reports: March 30, 2025
Deadline for Expert Discovery: April 13, 2025
Deadline to File Motion for Class May 13, 2025
Certification and Related Daubert
Motion(s):
Deadline to File Opposition for Class June 10, 2025
Certification and Related Daubert
Motion(s):
Deadline to File Reply for Class July 8, 2025
Certification and Related Daubert
Motion(s):
Lido Labs is a digital marketing firm that offers advertising, lead
generation and cost per impression campaigns.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ngeDc at no extra
charge.[CC]
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Faces Gyani Consumer Action in FL Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Lululemon Athletica Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended July 28, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 29, 2024, that on July 12, 2024,
Lululemon and its subsidiary, Lululemon USA Inc., were named as
defendants in a putative consumer class action captioned "Gyani v.
Lululemon Athletica Inc., et al.," (No. 1:24-cv-22651-BB) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The complaint asserts claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment based on statements
by the company relating to the sustainability and environmental
impact of the company's products and actions during the period
October 28, 2020 to present. The complaint seeks monetary damages,
as well as non-monetary relief such as an injunction to end the
alleged unlawful practices.
Lululemon Athletica Inc., a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the
design, distribution, and retail of technical athletic apparel,
footwear, and accessories with 721 and 711 company-operated stores
as of July 28, 2024 and January 28, 2024, respectively.
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Faces Patel Shareholder Suit in NY Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lululemon Athletica Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended July 28, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 29, 2024, that on August 8, 2024, the
company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a
purported securities class action captioned "Patel v. Lululemon
Athletica Inc., et al.," No. 1:24-cv-06033) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and
misleading public statements and omissions by Defendants during the
period December 7, 2023 to July 24, 2024 relating to lululemon's
business, product offerings, and inventory allocation that
Plaintiff alleges artificially inflated the Company's stock price.
The complaint currently seeks unspecified monetary damages.
Lululemon Athletica Inc., a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the
design, distribution, and retail of technical athletic apparel,
footwear, and accessories with 721 and 711 company-operated stores
as of July 28, 2024 and January 28, 2024, respectively.
MALIBU BOATS: Faces Consumer Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------
Malibu Boats, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 29, 2024, that on May 31, 2024, a customer
filed a class action complaint against the company and Boats LLC in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Case
1:24-cv-00648).
The complaint, which purports to be filed on behalf of a nationwide
class of customers, alleges violation of common law, the
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty, and violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act based on guidance issued to customers of certain older
model boats related to riding in the bow area of those boats.
Malibu Boats, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of a
diverse range of recreational powerboats, including performance
sport boats, sterndrive and outboard boats under eight brands:
Malibu, Axis, Pursuit, Maverick, Cobia, Pathfinder, Hewes and
Cobalt.
MALIBU BOATS: Faces Securities Suit Over Misleading Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Malibu Boats, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 29, 2024, that it is currently defending
against a securities class action lawsuit.
The class action complaint alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements made by the company related to its
business, operations and prospects during the period from November
4, 2022 through April 11, 2024.
Said complaint alleges, among other things, that it violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by
not disclosing alleged material adverse facts related to inventory
and relationship with one of its former dealers, Tommy’s Boats,
and accordingly, that any positive statements made during the class
period about the business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Prior to the filing of the securities class action lawsuit, one of
its former dealers, Tommy’s Boats, filed a claim alleging that
Malibu Boats, Inc. and Malibu Boats, LLC breached obligations under
dealership agreements with Tommy’s Boats, quantum meruit, unjust
enrichment, promissory estoppel and intentional and negligent
misrepresentations relating to the parties’ commercial
relationship. Tommy’s Boats is seeking monetary damages. On July
3, 2024, the trustee appointed in the chapter 11 bankruptcy cases
for Tommy’s Boats voluntarily dismissed the claims filed by
Tommy’s Boats without prejudice.
Malibu Boats, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of a
diverse range of recreational powerboats, including performance
sport boats, sterndrive and outboard boats under eight brands:
Malibu, Axis, Pursuit, Maverick, Cobia, Pathfinder, Hewes and
Cobalt.
MATAWANA LLC: Saunders Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MATAWANA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07123 (S.D.N.Y., September 19, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.matawanany.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of navigation links, redundant alternative text,
linked images missing alternative text, and missing form labels.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Matawana LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
MATTERPORT INC: Declaratory Judgment Over Lock Up Provision Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY BURDI-DUMAS, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. MATTERPORT, INC., Case No. 2024-0961
(Del. Ch., Sept. 16, 2024) seeks declaratory judgment that the lock
up provision in the A&R Bylaws did not apply to or restrict the
sale of the Matterport shares issued to and held by Plaintiff and
the members of the Class.
The Plaintiff seeks an equitable remedy, including damages, for the
harm caused to Plaintiff and the members of the Class by
Matterport’s prohibiting and preventing them from selling their
Matterport shares until January 18, 2022. Further, the Plaintiff
seeks damages caused by Matterport's breach of the A&R Bylaws.
Ms. Burdi-Dumas is a resident of La Habra Heights, California. She
was Global Director of Insurance and Strategy at Matterport from
September 2020 through August 2022.
Matterport Inc. is an American 3D spatial mapping company that is
currently headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew S. Dupre, Esq.
Brian R. Lemon, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1710
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 596-9200
- and -
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Ian McLoughlin, Esq.
Emilie Castro-Schwarz
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
One Boston Place, Suite 2600
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 901-3739
- and -
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq.
Richard A. Speirs, Esq.
Amy Miller, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
MERIT ENERGY: Court Certifies Settlement Class in GOP Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOP, LLC, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, v. Merit Energy Company,
LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00278-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jason
Robertson entered an order adopting all defined terms as set forth
in the Settlement Agreement:
-- The Court finds the Settlement Class should be certified at
this
stage for the purposes of this Settlement, as the Settlement
Class
meets all certification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 for a settlement class.
-- The Settlement Class is certified for settlement purposes
only,
subject to the Court's final consideration at the Final
Fairness
Hearing.
-- In determining whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been
satisfied for purposes of certifying the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes, the Court has taken into account the fact
of
settlement and its impact upon the factors required for
certification of the Settlement Class.
The certified Settlement Class is defined as follows:
"All non-excluded persons or entities who during the Claim
Period: (1) received an Untimely Payment from Merit for oil
and
gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells, or on whose behalf an
Untimely
Payment was sent as unclaimed property to a government entity
by
Merit; and (2) whose proceeds did not include the statutory
interest required by the PRSA."
Excluded from the Class are: (1) Merit, its affiliates,
predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; and (2)
agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United
States
of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) Publicly traded oil
and
gas companies and their affiliates and subsidiaries; (4) any
Indian Tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or
Indian
allotee as defined at 30 U.S.C. § 1702(2); (5) any officers
of
the Court; and (6) persons previously paid interest by
Merit.
"Untimely Payment" means a payment of proceeds from the sale
of
oil or gas production produced from an Oklahoma well after
the
statutory periods identified in Okla. Stat. tit. 52, section
570.10(B)(1) or (2)."
Untimely Payments do not include: (a) payments of proceeds
equal
to or less than $25.00; (b) prior period adjustments; (c)
payments made on or before Sept. 29, 2017, or on or after May
1,
2024; and (d) joint interest billing netted amounts.
The "Claim Period" means checks or payments made or issued by
Merit Energy Company, LLC, dated between Sept. 30, 2017,
through
April 30, 2024, subject to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement
regarding Released Claims.
-- The Court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration to act as
Settlement Administrator and perform the associated
responsibilities set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
-- The Court appoints Western Alliance Bank as the Escrow Agent.
The Escrow Agent is authorized and directed to act in accordance
with the Settlement Agreement and Escrow
Agreement.
Merit is a privately held US-based oil and gas company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PHXENM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randy C. Smith, Esq.
RANDY C. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES
One Leadership Square, Suite 1310
211 North Robinson Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 212-2786
Facsimile: (405) 232-6515
E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com
— and —
David R. Gleason, Esq.
MORICOLI KELLOGG & GLEASON, P.C.
One Leadership Square, Suite 1350N
211 N. Robinson Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 235-3357
Facsimile: (405) 232-6515
E-mail: dgleason@moricoli.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel M. McClure, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000
Houston, TX 77010-4106
Telephone: (713) 651-5151
Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
E-mail: Dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com
— and —
Mark Banner, Esq.
HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK,
GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON PC
521 East 2nd Street, Suite 1200
Tulsa, OK 74120
Telephone:(918) 594-0400
Facsimile: (918) 594-0505
E-mail: mbanner@hallestill.com
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Settlement in Securities Suit for Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mesoblast Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 29, 2024, that a class action proceeding in
the Federal Court of Australia was served on the company in May
2022 by the law firm William Roberts Lawyers on behalf of persons
who, between February 22, 2018, and December 17, 2020, acquired an
interest in Mesoblast shares, American Depository Receipts, and/or
related equity swap arrangements. On August 21, 2024, the company
announced that the class action had been resolved subject to
Federal Court approval.
In June 2022, the firm Phi Finney McDonald commenced a second
shareholder class action against the company in the Federal Court
of Australia asserting similar claims arising during the same
period. Like the class action lawsuit from October 2020 filed in
the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of New
York (which had court approval for settlement in August 2022), the
Australian class actions relate to the Complete Response Letter
released by the FDA in relation to its GvHD product candidate; they
also relate to certain representations made by the Company in
relation to our COVID-19 product candidate and the decline in the
market price of our ordinary shares in December 2020. The
Australian class actions have been consolidated into one lawsuit.
Mesoblast Limited is primarily engaged in the development of
regenerative medicine products with its primary proprietary
regenerative medicine technology platform based on specialized
cells known as mesenchymal lineage cells.
MEXICAN RESTAURANT: Reyes Seeks Servers' Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS REYES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., D/B/A UNCLE JULIO'S
MEXICAN FROM SCRATCH RESTAURANT GROUP, Case No. 8:24-cv-02700-PJM
(D. Md., Sept. 18, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit alleges that Uncle Julio's had a policy and practice of
failing to properly pay minimum wages because it has violated the
rules for using the tip credit, including by requiring
servers/bartenders to spend more than 20 percent of their time
engaged in non-tip-producing activities. Additionally, Uncle
Julio's also had a policy of not paying for all overtime hours
worked, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seek
damages in the amount of all respective unpaid minimum wage and
overtime, plus liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
incurred in this action, to be paid as provided by the FLSA, and
such other legal and equitable relief as the court deems just and
proper.
Mr. Reyes was employed as a server/bartender at Uncle Julio's
location in Bethesda, Maryland, from February 2023 until February
2024.
Uncle Julio's is an authentic Mexican restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Joseph Goodson, Esq.
John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
Kevin Todd, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
200 E. Pratt Street, Suite 418
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (202) 919-5952
E-mail: tjosephgoodson@hkm.com
jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
ktodd@hkm.com
- and -
Michael Hodgson, Esq.
THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
3609 SW Pryor Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64082
Telephone: (816) 600-0117
Facsimile: (816) 600-0137
E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Sinclair Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY SINCLAIR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04528-LTS-GWG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) Finding that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
this action;
(2) Certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the
proposed class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3);
(3) Appointing Rodney Sinclair as Class Representative;
(4) Appointing Outten & Golden LLP and Shavitz Law Group, P.A.
as
Class Counsel; and
(5) Directing the parties to confer regarding an appropriate
notice
for the class and submit a stipulation regarding the notice,
or
a letter detailing any disputes, within 30 days of the
Court's
Order.
Michael Bloomberg is an American businessman and politician. He is
the majority owner and co-founder of Bloomberg L.P.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YtbXdn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
Michael C. Danna, Esq.
Hannah Cole-Chu, Esq.
Theanne Liu Svedman, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
mdanna@outtengolden.com
hcolechu@outtengolden.com
tliusvedman@outtengolden.com
- and
Michael Palitz, Esq.
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Tamra Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
MISSION ESSENTIAL: Doe Appeals Dismissal of Data Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Mission Essential Group, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03365, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.
The Plaintiff commenced this putative class action against the
Defendant in October 2023 for its failure to protect the personally
identifiable information (PII) of its employees following a data
breach. The Plaintiff amended his complaint shortly thereafter to
add new claims and factual allegations.
On Jan. 17, 2024, the Defendant moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim, which the Court granted
through an Order entered by Judge Sarah D. Morrison on Aug. 20,
2024. The Court found that the Plaintiff is correct that "a
plaintiff whose Social Security number is stolen in a data breach
suffers concrete injury for the purpose of Article III standing."
However, he has not adequately pleaded that any of his PII was
improperly accessed, let alone stolen. For this reason, the
Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted.
The appellate case is captioned John Doe v. The Mission Essential
Group, LLC, Case No. 24-3815, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, filed on September 18, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Defendant-Appellee THE MISSION ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC is represented
by:
Kip Thomas Bollin, Esq.
THOMPSON HINE
127 Public Square, Suite 3900
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 566-5500
MODERN CONCEPTS: Van Santen Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Van Santen and Caroline Van Santen, and all
others similarly situated v. MODERN CONCEPTS CONSTRUCTION LLC;
MODERN CONCEPTS SOLAR AND ROOFING INC.; MCSOLAR CAPITAL GROUP LLC;
RAMAN DANNY CHOPRA, an individual; and DIVIDEND SOLAR FINANCE, LLC
n/k/a DIVIDEND, A DIVISION OF FIFTH THIRD BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2024-CA-001123 was removed from the Seventh
Judicial Circuit in and for St. Johns County, Florida, to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
Sept. 19, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00969.
The Complaint alleges that the MC Entities and Chopra engaged in
unfair and deceptive trade practices in marketing and selling
residential solar systems, (Sales Representations), including by
enlisting "third-party lenders" such as Dividend to provide
financing to customers, id. (Third-Party Lenders). The Complaint
brings claims for: violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"); violations of the federal Truth in
Lending Act ("TILA"); breach of contract; and avoiding fraudulent
transfers. Count I is against all Defendants, Counts II and III are
against the MC Entities and Fifth Third, and Count IV is against
the MC Entities and Chopra.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryant H. Dunivan, Jr., Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ATTORNEY, PA
301 W. Platt St., #216
Tampa, FL 33606
Phone: (813) 252-0239
Email: bryant@theconsumerprotectionattorney.com
eservice@theconsumerprotectionattorney.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brandon T. Holmes, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
201 North Franklin Street, Suite 3050
Tampa, FL 33601
Phone: (813) 543-9848
Primary: brandon.holmes@dinsmore.com
Secondary: frances.gonzalez@dinsmore.com
alexandria.bishop@dinsmore.com
MODERNA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 8
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Moderna, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRNA).
Shareholders who purchased shares of MRNA during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/moderna-loss-submission-form/?id=103175&from=3
CLASS PERIOD: January 18, 2023 to June 25, 2024
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) mRNA-1345, an respiratory
syncytial virus vaccine, was less effective than defendants had led
investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, mRNA-1345's clinical and/or
commercial prospects were overstated; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
DEADLINE: October 8, 2024 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/moderna-loss-submission-form/?id=103175&from=3
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of MRNA during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is October 8, 2024. There
is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
MUSEUM OF SEX: Ruiz Case Stayed Pending Mediation
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ruiz v. The Museum of Sex
LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00178-RA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie
Abram entered an order granting motion to stay the case pending the
Parties' upcoming mediation with Joe Saltarelli, Esq., of Hunton
Andrews Kurth LLP.
The case is hereby stayed pending mediation. The parties shall
submit a joint status report by Nov. 5, 2024.
The Parties have agreed to mediate with Mr. Saltarelli on October
30, 2024, the first mutually-available date. The Parties note that
they have exchanged written and document discovery and believe they
now have enough information to intelligently analyze the strengths
and weaknesses of this case.
The Defendant is an intimate museum chronicling the evolution of
human sexuality in ever-changing exhibits.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u419qM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Parties are represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
NC ACCIDENT: Saunders Sues Over Website's Access Barriers
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NC ACCIDENT REPORTS LLC d/b/a ELEVATE SOHO
CANNABIS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06950 (S.D.N.Y., September
13, 2024) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State
Civil Rights Law.
The Plaintiff brings this civil action against Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's
websites to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The
Plaintiff alleges that he encountered various access barriers that
denied him full and equal access to Defendant's online goods,
content, and services.
Headquartered in New York, NY, NC Accident Reports LLC owns and
maintains the website, www.elevatesohocannabis.com, which offers
products and services, including their premium edible cannabis.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
NEW FORTRESS: Faces Class Action Over 23.62% Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against New Fortress Energy Inc. ("New Fortress" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:NFE). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton
at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.
The class action concerns whether New Fortress and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
You have until November 24, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you
as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who
purchased or otherwise acquired New Fortress securities during the
Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On August 9, 2024, New Fortress issued a press release announcing
disappointing adjusted EBITDA second quarter 2024 highlights and
lowering the Company's guidance for the second half of 2024
accordingly. In relevant part, New Fortress revealed that its
adjusted EBITDA in the second quarter of $120 million was well
below the Company's expectation of $275 million. The Company
attributed the disappointing results and lowered guidance to delays
in placing the Company's FLNG 1 project into service, which cost
New Fortress $150 million per quarter in lost operating margin.
On this news, New Fortress's stock price fell $4.02 per share, or
23.62%, to close at $13.00 per share on August 9, 2024.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. More than 85 years later, Pomerantz
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in
damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class of Mentally Impaired Children Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as B.D., by their next
friend, Christine Wellington v. Christopher Sununu, Governor of New
Hampshire et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00004-PB (D.N.H.), the Hon.
Judge Paul Barbadoro entered an order:
-- granting certification of a class consisting of:
"All children, ages 14 through 17, who: (1) are, or will be, in
the legal custody or under the protective supervision of DCYF
under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 169-C:3 (XVII) and/or (XXV);
(2) have a mental impairment that substantially limits a major
life activity, or have a record of such an impairment; and (3)
currently are, or are at serious risk of being, unnecessarily
placed in congregate care settings";
-- appointing B.D., by and through their next friend, Christine
Wellington as class representative; and
-- appointing B.D.'s counsel of record as class counsel pursuant
to
Rule 23(g).
Finally, the defendants assert that B.D. has failed to demonstrate
that the relief they request would definitively resolve the class
members’ injuries. But, as I recently explained in rejecting a
similar argument, Rule 23(b)(2) does not require such a showing.
All that is required is that an appropriate injunction "is
conceivable." Of course, an injunction will only issue if B.D.
succeeds on the merits by demonstrating that the challenged
practices violate class members' rights under the ADA or the CWA.
Should this occur, it is certainly conceivable that the court could
craft an appropriate and effective injunction, similar to the one
proposed by B.D., ordering the defendants to modify those
practices. Because that injunction would modify the way in which
the defendants administer the foster care system writ large, it
would benefit each member of the class regardless of their
individual needs or circumstances. Accordingly, the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(2) are satisfied.
The plaintiff's primary claims are that these congregate care
placements violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act.
The plaintiff also asserts that the defendants are violating the
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act by failing to provide
class members with adequate case plans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e5MMVc at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Certifies Older Youth Placement Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
https://indepthnh.org/ reports that the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire granted class certification
in G.K. et al. v Sununu et. al. The ruling allows plaintiffs to
pursue an end to the unnecessary institutionalization of older
youth with mental health disabilities in New Hampshire's foster
care system as a class action.
In their complaint filed in January 2021, plaintiffs assert that
New Hampshire's foster care system is failing older youth by using
institutional placements rather than placing youth in the community
with necessary services. Compared to other states, New Hampshire
places a much higher percentage of older foster youth in congregate
care settings, which can seriously harm children's social,
emotional, and physical wellbeing. A lack of appropriate services
can also lead to tragic outcomes such as homelessness,
unemployment, incarceration, and poor educational achievement.
In the order on September 18, the Court stated that "[a] 2022
federal report found that 27% of all foster
children in New Hampshire are in congregate care placements,
compared to 9% of foster children nationally." "The problem is even
more pronounced for adolescent foster children with mental
impairments." The Court cited to the data analysis of one of the
experts finding that "77% of adolescent foster children with mental
impairments have experienced at least one congregate care
placement, with many experiencing two or more such placements."
The lawsuit's class includes youth ages 14 to 17 who are in the
custody of New Hampshire's Division for Children, Youth and
Families (DCYF), have a mental impairment, and are either currently
in or at risk of being unnecessarily placed in institutions or
group facilities.
The State of New Hampshire has spent millions of dollars fighting
this lawsuit when it could instead be
focused on complying with its federal obligations to older foster
youth in its care.
"This decision validates the very real experiences of the plaintiff
youth who brought this suit, and the many older foster youth who
are among the certified class." said Michelle Wangerin, Youth Law
Project Director at New Hampshire Legal Assistance. "We look
forward to pressing forward development of a system that ensures
older foster youth removed from their homes due to abuse or neglect
have access to family homes and services in their local
communities. Only then will the State end its reliance on
unnecessary institutionalization to serve this extremely vulnerable
population of youth."
"Children should live in families with community-based supports,
not in institutions, and the State is failing them. We are pleased
with the Court's decision, and we will continue to fight to have
these vulnerable foster youth receive the services that they need
and deserve so that they can grow and thrive," said Jennifer Eber,
Litigation Director of Disability Rights Center -- NH.
"Nationally, the harm to kids from unnecessary institutionalization
is widely recognized, yet New Hampshire is entrenched in supporting
facilities rather than families and community-based care. It's
unlawful and wastes millions in taxpayer dollars.
New Hampshire is an outlier on this issue and with this decision,
our clients can move forward with
pursuing an end to this injustice," said Madeleine Kinney, senior
staff attorney at Children's Rights.
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Disability Rights Center-New Hampshire: Jennifer Eber and Kayla
Turner.
New Hampshire Legal Assistance: Michelle Wangerin and Kay
Drought.
ACLU of New Hampshire: Gilles Bissonnette and Henry
Klementowicz.
Children's Rights Inc.: Ira Lustbader, Madeleine MacNeil Kinney,
Kathleen Simon, Carolyn Hite, Aarti Iyer, and Rebecca Ritchin
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP: Diane Sullivan, Konrad Cailteux,
Katheryn Maldonado, Kathleen Stanaro, and Sarah Ryu [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Court Junks Plaintiffs' Bid to Reject Objections
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOCAL 3621, EMS OFFICERS
UNION, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, individually and on behalf of its
members, RENAE MASCOL, and LUIS RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of all other similarly-situated individuals, v. CITY
OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04476-LJL-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
request that the Court reject as untimely the Defendants'
objections.
The parties are directed to meet and confer prior to noon on Sept.
18, 2024, to determine whether they can narrow the issues under
dispute. The Plaintiffs are directed to respond to the Defendants'
objections no later than noon on September 18, 2024.
The parties are reminded that class discovery has long since closed
and that, the Court having previously denied the motion for class
certification, this case now is proceeding as an individual action.
The Court will hold a hearing in Courtroom 15C, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, NY 10007 on September 19, 2024 at 10 AM. Defendants'
obligations to respond to the subject discovery order, Dkt. No. 590
are suspended pending a ruling on Defendants’ objections.
The Court expects to issue a ruling after hearing argument at the
hearing. The deadlines for motions for summary judgment and the
renewed motion for class certification are firm.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bxn2kF at no extra
charge.[CC]
NRP FOOD: Correa Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLANCA CORREA, on behalf
of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. NRP FOOD
SOLUTIONS LLC and NITIN PENDHARKAR, Case No. 1:24-cv-05220-AS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
motion for conditional collective certification and for court
facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b).
NRP is a food service company, specializing in providing a range of
culinary solutions for businesses and events.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5qml3p at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
NVE INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Herrera Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. N.V.E., INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07100 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
18, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://stacker2.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 the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Aug. 27, 2024, in an attempt to purchase Stacker2 Chew Gummies: B12
10,000% from the Defendant, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar
to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods
and services offered to the public and made available to the
public, the suit says.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation,
the suit alleges.
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 weight loss supplements & sports nutrition
products.[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
NVIDIA CORP: Oral Argument in Securities Suit Set for Nov. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended July 28, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 28, 2024, that it is currently facing
a putative securities class action lawsuit (4:18-cv-07669-HSG)
initially filed on December 21, 2018 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and titled "In Re
NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation." An amended complaint was
filed on May 13, 2020. NVIDIA filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari on March 4, 2024 which the Supreme Court approved on
June 17, 2024. Four amicus briefs were filed in support of NVIDIA's
petition. Oral arguments are scheduled for November 13, 2024.
The amended complaint asserted that NVIDIA and certain NVIDIA
executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making materially false or misleading statements related to
channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on
graphics processing unit demand between May 10, 2017 and November
14, 2018. Plaintiffs also alleged that the NVIDIA executives who
they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. Plaintiffs sought class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.
On March 2, 2021, the district court granted NVIDIA's motion to
dismiss the complaint without leave to amend, entered judgment in
favor of NVIDIA and closed the case. On March 30, 2021, plaintiffs
filed an appeal from judgment in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, case number 21-15604.
On August 25, 2023, a majority of a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel
affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's
dismissal of the case, with a third judge dissenting on the basis
that the district court did not err in dismissing the case. On
November 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit denied NVIDIA's petition for
rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit panel's majority decision to
reverse in part the dismissal of the case, which NVIDIA had filed
on October 10, 2023. On November 21, 2023, NVIDIA filed a motion
with the Ninth Circuit for a stay of the mandate pending NVIDIA's
petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the
United States and the Supreme Court's resolution of the matter. On
December 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted NVIDIA's motion to stay
the mandate. NVIDIA's deadline to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari is March 4, 2024.
NVIDIA is a full-stack computing company with data-center-scale
offerings for "compute & networking" and graphics.
PATSY'S ITALIAN: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Ymeraga Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
KRESHNIK HOTI and DESIART YMERAGA, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. PATSY'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT INC., d/b/a
PATSY'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT, SAL SCOGNAMILLO, JOSEPH SCOGNAMILLO,
LISA SCOGNAMILLO; Case No. 1:24-cv-06991 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2024)
alleges that Defendants willfully failed and refused to pay the
Class members the appropriate overtime rate for work in excess of
40 hours per workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendants knowingly
retained/misappropriated gratuities belonging to Plaintiffs and the
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.
Plaintiff Hoti has been employed by the Defendants as a server from
early 2017 through September 2024.
Plaintiff Ymeraga has been employed by the Defendants as a server
from 2018 through September 2024.
The Defendants operate a restaurant business.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Michael DiGiulio, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Faces Mehring Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended July 27, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 29, 2024, that on May 23, 2024,
Plaintiff Monica Mehring and Mehring Family Dentistry filed a class
action complaint against Patterson Companies Inc. (as Patterson
Dental), UnitedHealth Group and its subsidiaries Change Healthcare
and Optum Inc. in a case captioned "Dr. Monica Mehring et al. v.
Patterson Companies, Inc. et al.," Case No. 4:24-cv-3147 (N.D. Cal.
May 23, 2024).
Complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' failure to
implement robust cybersecurity controls, their computer networks
were hacked, leaving confidential health data and source code
compromised. Plaintiffs allege that as a direct result of the data
breach, they were unable to submit claims through
Patterson-supplied "Eaglesoft" software and, to date, have been
unable to receive payments for claims submitted on February 20,
2024.
While Plaintiffs assert that they use Eaglesoft to access Change
Healthcare and Optum software to "integrate processing,
prescriptions, billing and insurance," they do not allege that
Eaglesoft or any of Patterson's IT systems or computer networks
were accessed. Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs assert negligence,
breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs
purport to bring each claim on behalf of a nationwide class of all
healthcare providers in the United States whose use of Change
Healthcare's and Optum's services were disrupted and whose use of
Eaglesoft's services were disrupted.
Plaintiffs also separately seek to certify a Delaware statewide
class defined as all healthcare providers in the state of Delaware
with the same concerns as above.
Patterson Companies, Inc. is into the wholesale of medical, dental
and hospital equipment and supplies and is based in St. Paul,
Minnesota.
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Ratliff Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jeremy Ratliff, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. Penske Logistics LLC, Case No.
24CH07582 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Chancery, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Sept. 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-08718 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Penske Logistics -- https://www.penskelogistics.com/ -- offers
state-of-the-art transportation and distribution solutions to help
you stay on track and avoid supply chain disruptions.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Esq.
Jennifer Ann Riley, Esq.
Tyler Zachary Zmick, Esq.
Duane Morris LLP
190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 499-6710
Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com
jariley@duanemorris.com
tzzmick@duanemorris.com
PHH MORTGAGE: Initial Written Discovery in Jones Due Oct. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNTWANETTE JONES et al.,
v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-01040-CPO-SAK
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Sharon King entered an order:
-- The Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a letter Sept. 30,
2024
with the Court by:
-- Initial written discovery request shall Oct. 3, 2024
be served by:
-- The parties shall serve the Court with an Sept. 30,
2024
Agreed-upon Discovery Confidentiality Order:
PHH Mortgage Corporation provides mortgage financing solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YPNI1r at no extra
charge.[CC]
POLANCO BROTHERS: Websites Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. POLANCO BROTHERS IP LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07088
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Websites,
s, www.polancobrotherscorp.com and
www.polancobrothersridgewood.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's Website around Sept. 9,
2024, as a result of a recommendation by a close friend who had
been aware of the Plaintiff's condition, and the potential benefits
and uses of marijuana and related products. Therefore, the
following day, the Plaintiff attempted to access the Defendant's
Websites respectively, with a sighted relative on the first
occasion and was very impressed with the companies' thoroughness of
each product sold online, detailing each of its unique
characteristics.
However, despite the Websites apparent thoroughness and
transparency, the Plaintiff encountered significant accessibility
barriers that prevented him from fully utilizing its services, when
he attempted to access the site by himself to discover crucial
information regarding the presence of any contraindications. This
has not only limited his ability to make informed decisions but
also infringed on his rights as a consumer and individual with a
disability, the suit contends.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal
access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has
engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. 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. Igartua is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using his computer.
Polanco Brothers offers cannabis, cannabis extracts, &
cannabis-infused products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
POLENE USA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Bunting Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
RASHETA BUNTING, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. POLENE USA, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-06555 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2024) sues the Defendant for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website, http//:www.Eng.polene-paris.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Polene provides to their
non-disabled customers through its website.
The Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on
Eng.polene-paris.com, most recently on Aug. 28, 2024, Sept. 5,
2024, and Sept. 9, 2024, but was unable to do so independently
because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. Amongst
other access barriers experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to make
an online purchase of leather bags including the Nodde and the
Numero Dix, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Polene's policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to the blind
and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks
compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Plaintiff Bunting is a visually-impaired and legally blind person
who requires screen-reading software to read website content using
her computer.
Polene offers luxury leather fashion products and handbags.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
POWER HOME: Massarello TCPA Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nathan James Massarello, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. Power Home Remodeling Group, LLC,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00499 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan on Sept. 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-12480-RJW-CI to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Power Home Remodeling -- https://powerhrg.com/ -- is an American
corporation headquartered in Chester, Pennsylvania that provides
services predominantly related to exterior remodeling products such
as replacement windows, roofing and vinyl siding.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (615) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
5550 Glades Road, Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
Ryan Garippo, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 499-6710
Fax: (312) 279-6780
Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com
jariley@duanemorris.com
rgarippo@duanemorris.com
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Courts OK's Sealing of Haeflein Declaration
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. FORD,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-04147-JHS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joel Slomsky entered
an order granting the Defendant's unopposed Motion to Place the
Declaration of Brian Haeflein under Seal.
The Declaration filed in support of Defendant's Opposition to the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be sealed by the
Clerk of Court.
Progressive Specialty offers property, casualty, life, and health
insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vH41Sl at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROSEGUR SERVICES: Cameron FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dale Cameron, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Prosegur Services Group, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-08789 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on Sept. 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-07156-PAE to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Prosegur Services Group, Inc. -- https://www.prosegur.com/en --
provides uniformed security services to commercial, financial,
industrial, aviation, and governmental clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq.
ABDUL K. HASSAN LAW GROUP PLLC
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
Phone: (718) 740-1000
Fax: (718) 740-2000
Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Benjamin Suess, Esq.
David A Schrader, Esq.
PAYKIN KRIEG & ADAMS LLP
2500 Westchester Avenue Suite 107
Purchase, NY 10577
Phone: (212) 725-2984
Fax: (914) 448-0001
Email: bsuess@muellerfirm.com
QUBE USA: Igartua Sues Over Website's Access Barriers to the Blind
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUBE USA LLC d/b/a QUBE and d/b/a QUBE TIMES
SQUARE DISPENSARY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07114 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory
relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.qubenyc.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of navigation links, redundant alternative text,
linked images missing alternative text, and missing form labels.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Qube USA LLC, doing business as Qube and Qube Times Square
Dispensary, is a company that sells online goods and services,
based in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
R&G BRENNER: Cinar Wins Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVE CINAR, CELESTE
DRAYTON, NICOLE ADOLPHUS, DARLENE RIERA, and STUART BARON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. R&G
BRENNER INCOME TAX, LLC, SUMMIT CONSULTANTS, INC., APEX PLANNING
INC., and BRENJAMIN K. BRENNER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01362-RPK-JRC
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Rachel Kovner entered an order adopting
modified Magistrate Judge Cho's Report & Recommendation (R&R):
The Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) is granted, with the exception that the
class period must have a defined end date. Within 30 days of this
order, the parties shall submit a joint letter proposing a definite
end date for the class period.
The Plaintiffs' request for authorization to distribute their
proposed Rule 23(c)(2)(B) notice is denied, and the parties are
directed to confer and submit a joint revised class notice for
approval within 45 days of this order. The Plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss the defendants' counterclaims is denied.
The Court overrules defendants' objections and adopts Judge Cho's
report and recommendation in substantial part. The timing of the
plaintiffs' motion did not prejudice the defendants, individual
issues do not predominate over common questions, and plaintiff'
proposed class is sufficiently numerous for class treatment.
Considering that plaintiffs have consistently indicated that they
would seek class certification, and that discovery is not yet
complete, defendants have not suffered prejudice from plaintiffs'
failure to seek certification at an earlier date.
Finally, the Court will not decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over defendants' counterclaims. None of the categories
enumerated in 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c) apply. Defendants'
counterclaims do not raise novel or complex issues of state law,
they do not substantially predominate over plaintiffs' Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") claims, the FLSA claims have not been
dismissed, and there are no other compelling reasons to decline
jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff Ave Cinar filed this lawsuit in March 2020, naming
only R&G Brenner Income Tax, LLC as defendant. The Plaintiff
alleged that R&G Brenner's failure to pay overtime violated both
the FLSA and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
In September 2023, pursuant to a joint stipulation by the parties,
the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
In January 2024, about two months after the amended complaint was
filed, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) class action for their NYLL claims.
The Plaintiffs were employed by R&G Brenner as income tax preparers
at different offices.
R&G Brenner provides income tax preparation services at its various
locations around the New York City metropolitan area.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HzDXNQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
RAY JONES: Back Seeks Guidance on Sealed Status of Court Docs
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL BACK, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. RAY JONES TRUCKING,
INC., TERESA JONES, GRANT JONES and STEVEN JONES, Case No.
4:22-cv-00005-GNS-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order grating motion for guidance regarding sealed status
of court documents 78 and 80.
Because the Defendants have indicated that Defendants did not
intend to file any of Ct. Docs. 78, 80 or 88 if sealing was not
available, and because there is not an indication that Defendants
have adequately provided notice to notice of its actions (or those
of the Court) to American Consolidated Natural Resources (the third
party who designated the documents in question as confidential),
and given Defendants' failure to address these issues (instead
hoisting the burden of dealing with the problem on the Court),
Plaintiff respectfully submits that it may be appropriate to,
rather than unsealing any of Defendants' filings, simply strike the
filings.
However, in any event, whatever the Court does with respect to
sealing or not sealing the documents which Defendants have
requested to be sealed, Plaintiff requests that the Court deal with
this issue as it relates to all of these documents (i.e., not just
with respect to Ct. Doc. 88) in a way that prevents issues arising
from Defendants' failure to follow the Rules applicable to filing
sealed documents from being an impediment to the Court ruling on
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
Specifically, under the Scheduling Order (Ct. Doc. 69), as well as
an Agreed Order (Ct. Doc. 91), further proceedings in this case
will await and depend upon the Court's ruling on Plaintiff’s
Motion for Class Certification.
The disposition of that important Motion should not be complicated
by Defendants' improper and insufficient – and facially so –
attempts to seal documents without providing any basis for such
sealing, but while also showing that Defendants only intended to
file such documents under seal.
On April 1, 2024, Defendants filed their Motion to Decertify. On
May 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Reply in Support Plaintiff's Motion
for Rule 23 Class Certification.
On June 3, 2024, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to File Under
Seal their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
RAY Jones provides trucking or transfer services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sStjZC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark N. Foster, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
Madisonville, Kentucky 42431
Telephone: (270) 213-1303
E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com
RAZVAN POP: Uselmann Plaintiffs Win Partial Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIRELA USELMANN, et al.,
v. RAZVAN POP, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-13652-GAD-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Gershwin Drain entered an order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
The Defendants' attempt to relitigate issues already raised and
addressed by this Court is precluded by the law-of-the-case
doctrine, which "provides that the courts should not reconsider a
matter once resolved in a continuing proceeding."
The Plaintiffs Mirela Uselmann, Gabriel Biclea, Ion Gutu, and
Dumitru Marius Rendenciuc on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated filed the instant action claiming they were
defrauded in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c).
On Jan. 27, 2023, this Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification. The class that was certified includes all
driver/owner-operators who had contracts with Defendant RSP Express
Inc. ("RSP") from 2010 to 2015.
The Plaintiffs are truck drivers/owner-operators who transported
freight on behalf of RSP, an over-the-road freight transportation
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=34Lepu at no extra
charge.[CC]
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Sanchez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC SERVICES CUSTOMER RESOURCE CENTER
WEST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02499-ESW (D. Ariz.,
September 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Nevada Wage and Hour Law, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiff worked remotely for the Defendant as a non-exempt
customer service representative from approximately October 1, 2021,
through approximately August 15, 2024.
Republic Services Customer Resource Center West, LLC is a call
center operator, with a principal place of business in Phoenix,
Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jacqueline Mendez Soto, Esq.
BARTON MENDEZ SOTO PLLC
401 W. Baseline Road, Suite 205
Tempe, AZ 85283
Telephone: (480) 550-5165
Email: jacqueline@bartonmendezsoto.com
RETAIL CONCEPTS: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Agnone Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RETAIL CONCEPTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-06606 (E.D.N.Y., September 19, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.sunandski.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate
landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus
order, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down
menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements
and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a
mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Retail Concepts, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
REZA ON CLARK: Agudo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Sergio Agudo, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated v. REZA ON CLARK, INC., d/b/a Reza Restaurant, a
dissolved Corporation; REZA TOULABI; RYAN TOULABI; and JOSEPH
TOULABI; Case No. 1:24-cv-08716 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 20, 2024), is
brought to recover unpaid wages, unpaid straight time and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys'
fees, and costs from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (the
"IMWL").
The Defendants failed to pay plaintiffs, and all other non-exempt
hourly employees, for all the time plaintiffs spent working for
defendants, even though time was required and/or permitted by
defendants. Specifically, defendants failed to pay plaintiffs for
time worked prior to the start time of that scheduled shift of each
employee, notwithstanding that plaintiffs were required to and
worked for defendants for up to an hour of time (and sometimes
more), before their scheduled shift start time, each day they were
assignment to work; and, in addition, defendants did not pay
plaintiffs for time worked following their scheduled shift.
The Defendants also often failed to provide Plaintiffs with two
fifteen-minute breaks during their daily shifts, at least two to
three times per week. The Plaintiffs often worked over seven and
one-half continuous hours for defendants during their shifts; and
did so with no break permitted by Defendants. The Defendants failed
to provide Plaintiffs with a full meal break during many of
Plaintiffs' shifts, even though Plaintiffs worked over seven and a
half continuous hours, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a server.
Reza's Restaurant is one of Chicago's most prominent Persian
restaurant chains which runs two restaurants at Evanston and
Oakbrook and offers delivery a service at downtown Chicago and
Andersonville.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2510,
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 880-1010
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Lagmanson Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marcus Lagmanson, Anthony R. Reyes, Brian
Belderrain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC.,
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC., TD AMERITRADE, INC., E*TRADE FINANCIAL
CORP., Case No. 1:21-cv-21298 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 20,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-08721 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for the Sherman-Clayton
Act.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. -- https://robinhood.com/ -- is an American
financial services company headquartered in Menlo Park,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Lubin, Esq.
8800 Bronx Ave., Suite 100H
Skokie, IL 60077
Phone: (773) 945-2608
Email: jonathan@lubinlegal.com
- and -
R. Tamara de Silva, Esq.
DE SILVA LAW OFFICES/LAW OFFICES OF R. TAMARA DE SILVA,
LLC
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1400
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 810-8100
Email: rtamaradesilva@gmail.com
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
SAFEWAY INC: Deceptively Markets Wine, Tempest Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TEMPEST, LADIAMOND HARVEY, SARAH MCGREGOR HORNER, and
BRIONNA BROUHARD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. SAFEWAY INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-06553-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
Sept. 18, 2024) seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief
that will finally put a stop to Safeway's deceptive marketing of
wine in grocery stores across the country, including California and
Oregon.
Accordingly, Safeway grocery stores advertise wine at sale prices
to Safeway Rewards members. The trouble is that Safeway's
time-limited member discounts are fake. Safeway claims that Safeway
Rewards members can buy wine at discounted prices during discrete
periods of time, after which the promotions will end, and the wine
will be sold at the original reference prices.
Reasonable consumers, like Plaintiffs, believe that Safeway is
offering its members bona fide discounts off true former prices and
that at the end of the sale, they will only be able to buy the
wines at the higher reference price, the lawsuit says.
In fact, Safeway never sells wine to its Safeway Rewards members at
the reference prices -- only at the false "sale" prices. At the end
of each promotion, Safeway just renews the promotion to keep the
Safeway Rewards member price at the purported "discount" price.
Safeway's reference prices have never been prevailing market retail
prices for Safeway Rewards members who purchase wine from Safeway.
Safeway markets a free membership rewards program for customers,
Safeway Rewards. The membership program is offered nationwide from
Safeway’s headquarters in Pleasanton, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
Allison W. Parr, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway – Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
aparr@tzlegal.com
- and -
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 839-7000
E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com
joel@skclassactions.com
SCHENKER INC: Parties Seeks Jan. 16, 2025 Hearing on Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC M. WICKHAM, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, v. SCHENKER, INC., a New
York company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:23-cv-00946-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order to continue the hearing for Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification from Oct. 10, 2024 to Jan. 16, 2025 to allow the
parties to reschedule and attend mediation before incurring further
litigation costs.
The Parties previously agreed to privately mediate this matter with
Hunter Hughes, Esq. on September 18, 2024.
However, on September 17, 2024, the morning before the planned
mediation, the parties were informed that Mr. Hughes had to cancel
the mediation due to a death in his immediate family. The Parties
have met and conferred and are in the process of rescheduling the
mediation. Therefore, the parties respectfully request the Court
Schenker provides transportation and logistics services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hc3LWC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Brian Louis, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
420 N. Camden Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
brian@setarehlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Curtis A. Graham, Esq.
Jamie Y. Lee, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 W. 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone (213) 443-4300
Facsimile (213) 443-4299
E-mail: cagraham@littler.com
jylee@littler.com
SECOND CHANCE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Portillo Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL PORTILLO, a resident of Baltimore County, FRANCIS
BETANCOURTH, a resident of Carroll County, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. SECOND CHANCE, INC., MARK STEPHEN
FOSTER, 300 PAINTING & REMODELING LLC, and JOSE JAVIER RIVAS MENDE,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02660-GLR (D. Md., Sept. 16, 2024) seeks to
recover earned wages, including overtime wages, which Defendants
failed to pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit contends that although Second Chance presents itself to
the public as an "innovative social enterprise" that provides
"livable wages," it in fact engages in wage theft by depriving many
employees, including the Plaintiffs, of their hard-earned overtime
pay and other required wages.
The Plaintiffs also assert individual and class-action claims for
unpaid wages and misclassification under the Maryland Wage and Hour
Law, the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Maryland
Workplace Fraud Act.
Finally, Ms. Betancourth asserts claims for retaliation in
violation of the FLSA and the Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work
Law.
Mr. Portillo was jointly employed by the Defendants from January
2021 through Aug. 28, 2023.
Ms. Betancourth was hired by Second Chance in 2017 and was later
jointly employed by the Defendants from 2019 through June 4, 2024.
Second Chances is engaged in "deconstructing" homes in the
mid-Atlantic area and beyond by removing furniture, flooring,
cabinets, windows, fixtures, and other materials from residential
properties to salvage such materials and prepare the properties for
rehabilitation or demolition.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amy Gellatly, Esq.
David Rodwin, Esq.
THE PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 625-9409
Facsimile: (410) 625-9423
E-mail: gellatlya@publicjustice.org
rodwind@publicjustice.org
- and -
Sally Abrahamson, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
705 8th Street SE, #100
Washington DC 20003
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
SHABU SHABU: Hudson Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HUDSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees v. SHABU SHABU LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01117 (M.D. Tenn.,
Sept. 16, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid
overtime wages for Hudson, as well as for all similarly situated
current and former servers who worked for the Shabu Shabu within 3
years prior to the filing of this Complaint, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
Shabu Shabu generally paid Hudson and similarly situated servers a
direct, cash hourly wage lower than $7.25 per hour under the
tip-credit provisions of the FLSA, the suit says.
The Defendant, however, failed to satisfy the requirements for
utilizing the tip credit to meet their minimum-wage and overtime
obligations to its servers by: (1) failing to give its servers the
required notice of the FLSA tip-credit provisions before claiming a
tip credit; (2) shifting business expenses to its servers by
requiring them to pay for spillage (spilled drinks) and walkouts
(customers who leave without paying) from their tips without
reimbursement; and (3) requiring its servers to share tips with
non-Potentially Similarly Situated Employees who have no customer
interaction, the suit contends.
Mr. Hudson was employed as a server at Shabu Shabu from April 2021
to March 2024.
The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant, known as Shabu
Shabu.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melody Fowler-Green, Esq.
N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 250-2000
Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
E-mail: mel@yezbaklaw.com
teeples@yezbaklaw.com
SOLE PROVISIONS: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Pasquale Agnone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sole Provisions, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-06593 (E.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 19, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services
Nepenthes America provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.soleprovisions.com (hereinafter "Soleprovisions.com" or
"the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Mjfootwear.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Nepenthes America's policies, practices, and procedures to that
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, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Sole Provisions provides to the public a website known as
Soleprovisions.com which provides consumers with access to an array
of shoes and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: 718.705.8706
Fax: 718.705.8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
SPA NAIL 9: Li Appeals Attorney Fees and Costs Ruling to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WEIDONG LI is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled Weidong Li, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Spa Nail 9, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-873, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York, is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay for all hours worked, including overtime, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
On June 17, 2024, judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff
and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of
$19,913.22, which is comprised of $3,874.50 in unpaid overtime
wages, $2,364.22 in pre-judgment interest, $3,874.50 in liquidated
damages, $4,800 for the Plaintiff's wage notice claim, and $5,000
for the Plaintiff's pay statement claim.
On June 26, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney fees
and costs, which the Court granted in part to the extent that the
Plaintiff is entitled to an additional $15,963.16 in attorney's
fees and $5,381.10 in costs and denied in all other respects. The
Order was entered by Judge Anne M. Nardacci on Aug. 14, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned Li v. Spa Nail 9, Inc., Case No.
24-2456, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on September 19, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant WEIDONG LI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard
Flushing, NY 11355
Defendants-Appellees SPA NAIL 9, INC., et al. are represented by:
Andy Doe, Esq.
SPA NAIL 9, INC.
2568 Western Ave., Suite 15
Altamont, NY 12009
SUNPATH LTD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Morales Extended to Dec. 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KURT MORALES II, BRANDON
CALLIER, LUCAS HORTON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. SUNPATH LTD., a Delaware corporation,
NORTHCOAST WARRANTY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, AMTRUST
NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, SING FOR SERVICE, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, and PELICAN INVESTMENT
HOLDINGS GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
AFFORDABLE AUTO SHIELD, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01376-JLH-SRF (D.
Del.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Hall entered an order granting
the Parties' stipulation to extend the deadlines as follows:
Deadline Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Motion for Class Certification Sept. 27, 2024 Dec. 20,
2024
Opposition to Motion for Class Nov. 8, 2024 Jan. 31,
2025
Certification
Reply to Motion for Class Dec. 20, 2024 March 14,
2025
Certification
Discovery Cut Off Dec. 20, 2024 March 14,
2025
Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure Dec. 31, 2024 March 25,
2025
Defendants' Expert Disclosures March 11, 2025 May 23,
2025
Expert Depositions April 16, 2025 June 27,
2025
Case Dispositive Motions April 29, 2025 July 11,
2025
Pretrial Conference Sept. 3, 2025 Dec. 19,
2025
Trial Sept. 15, 2025 Jan. 5,
2026
SunPath specializes in the Automotive area.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zZK2v4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 N. Market Str., 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0300
Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
- and -
Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200
San Mateo CA 94401
Telephone: (650) 781-8000
Facsimile: (650) 648-0705
E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen Dale Dargitz, Esq.
O'HAGAN MEYER
800 North King Street, Plaza No. 1
Wilmington 19801
Telephone: (302) 492-2150
E-mail: SDargitz@ohaganmeyer.com
- and -
Thad J. Bracegirdle, Esq.
Ronald P. Golden, III
BAYARD, P.A.
600 North King Street, Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 429-4262
Facsimile: (302) 658-6395
E-mail: tbracegirdle@bayardlaw.com
rgolden@bayardlaw.com
- and -
Brion B. Doyle, Esq.
Justin A. Allen, Esq.
VARNUM LLP
333 Bridge Street Northwest, Suite 1700
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
Telephone: (616) 336-6000
E-mail: bbdoyle@varnumlaw.com
jaallen@varnumlaw.com
- and -
C. Scott Reese, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
E-mail: sreese@coochtaylor.com
- and -
Leo J. Hurley, Jr., Esq.
Andrew C. Sayles, Esq.
CONNELL FOLEY LLP
56 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07-68
Telephone: (973) 535-0500
E-mail: lhurley@connellfoley.com
SYMETRA LIFE: Court Stays Davis Suit Until Nov. 4
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS E. DAVIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-KKE (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order granting
the parties' stipulated motion and staying this matter until Nov.
4, 2024.
-- The clerk is directed to terminate:
(1) Plaintiff's motion for class certification,
(2) Symetra's motion to exclude opinion of expert Scott J.
Witt,
and
(3) Symetra's motion for summary judgment.
Symetra offers annuities, disability, medical, accidental, and life
insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gm9Rv9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
rsolomon@tousley.com
- and -
Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
David A. Hickey, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Ste. 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
perkins@stuevesiegel.com
lange@stuevesiegel.com
hickey@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
John J. Schirger, Esq.
Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
SCHIRGER FEIERABEND, LLC
4520 Main Street, Ste. 1570
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 561-6500
Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
jfeierabend@millerschirger.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Laura Geist, Esq.
Yuhan Chi, Esq.
Joshua Anderson, Esq.
Naiara Toker, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAHER LLP
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 858-7400
Facsimile: (415) 858-7599
E-mail: lgeist@willkie.com
ychi@willkie.com
jdanderson@willkie.com
ntoker@willkie.com
- and -
Medora A. Marisseau, Esq.
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 223-1313
Facsimile: (206) 682-7100
E-mail: mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 7
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL THOMAS, MARIA
CONYERSJORDAN, AUSTIN SHERMAN, LYNDA ALEXANDRA MAHER, AVA DORE,
RACHEL RICHENBERG, and EMILY BURKE, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00460-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William Stickman IV
entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for final Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action certification:
-- Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs motion for class
certification and motion for final certification pursuant to
the
FLSA are to be filed no later than Oct. 7, 2024;
-- The Plaintiffs' replies in support of their motion for class
certification and motion for final certification pursuant to
the
FLSA are to be filed no later than Nov. 15, 2024; and
-- Defendant's Sur-Reply in support of its opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for final certification pursuant to the
FLSA
is to be filed no later than Dec. 16, 2024.
TEKsystems, Inc. provides information technology services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2VZ8NV at no extra
charge.[CC]
TGI FRIDAYS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 20, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daphne Culton and Camari
Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. TGI Fridays, Inc., a foreign corporation; et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-00989-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Albregts
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the parties'
stipulation to the extent that the parties agree.
The Court grants in part and denies in part the remainder of the
parties' stipulation as outlined herein.
The Plaintiff's proposal regarding ESI shall govern the parties'
exchange of ESI.
The Court entered an order setting following discovery deadlines:
Motion to circulate notice: Sept. 23, 2024
Amend pleadings/add parties: Oct. 23, 2024
Expert disclosures: Nov. 15, 2024
Rebuttal expert disclosures: Dec. 16, 2024
Discovery cutoff: Jan. 21, 2025
Dispositive motions: Feb. 20, 2025
Motion for class certification: Feb. 20, 2025
Joint pretrial order: Mar. 24, 20251
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vqVKpA at no extra
charge.[CC]
TOBIAS & ASSOCIATES: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tobias & Associates
Inc. The case is styled as Temiriam Thomas, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. Tobias & Associates Inc. doing
business as: GetMeHealthcare, Case No. 9:24-cv-81155-AMC (S.D.
Fla., Sept. 20, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Tobias & Associates Inc. doing business as Get Me Healthcare is an
insurance broking firm that mainly focuses on health insurance and
offers bridge plans, dental plans, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Rachel E Kaufman
KAUFMAN PA
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Pratt Files Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Travelers
Indemnity Company. The case is styled as Tiffany Pratt,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, The Travelers Companies, Inc.,
Travelers Texas MGA, Inc. Consumers County Mutual Insurance
Company, Case No. 0:24-cv-03710-JMB-ECW (D. Minn., Sept. 20,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The Travelers Companies, Inc. -- https://www.travelers.com/ --
commonly known as Travelers, is an American insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen Hanson Riebel
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200
Mpls, MN 55401-2179
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Fax: (612) 339-0981
Email: Khriebel@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
TROPICAIRE DEVELOPMENT: Property Violates ADA, Longhini Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS LONGHINI, v. TROPICAIRE DEVELOPMENT, INC., ISABELA
ENTERPRISE CORP. d/b/a CAYO ESQUIVEL and BEST BUY STORES, L.P.
d/b/a BEST BUY STORES 553, Case No. 1:24-cv-23555-RAR (S.D. Fla.,
Sept. 16, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section
12181, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 28 U.S.C.
sections 2201 and 2202.
The suit alleges that the Defendants have 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 and
restaurant and bar business within the commercial property, as
prohibited by 42 U.S.C. section 12182 et seq.
The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial shopping plaza
property, restaurant and bar and store regularly, to include a
visit to the commercial property and business located within the
commercial property on July 29, 2024 and Aug. 23, 2024, and
encountered multiple violations of the ADA on each visit that
directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial
property.
The barriers to access at the Defendant's commercial property,
commercial restaurant and bar business and commercial store have
each denied or diminished the Plaintiff's ability to visit these
places of public accommodation and have endangered his safety in
violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a
risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the
Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, the suit asserts.
Mr. Longhini is an individual with disabilities as defined by and
pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
Tropicaire owns and operates a commercial property and shopping
center located at 7725 SW 40 Street, Miami, Florida and conducted a
substantial amount of 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
TYCO FIRE: Camden Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v.
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as successor in interest to
The Ansul Company, and CHEMGUARD, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02321-RMG
(D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
motion for final approval of class settlement, for final
certification of the settlement class, and in response to
objections:
-- Grant their motion for final approval;
-- Find the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate;
-- Find that, for settlement purposes only, the Settlement Class
satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
-- Grant their Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs;
-- Enter judgment dismissing Claims in the Litigation asserted by
Settlement Class Members against Released Persons; and
-- Enter a permanent injunction prohibiting any Settlement Class
Member from asserting or pursuing any Released Claim against
any
Released Person in any forum.
Tyco manufactures fire protection and general industrial
machinery.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jTew68 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. London, Esq.
DOUGLAS AND LONDON P.C.
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 566-7500
Facsimile: (212) 566-7501
E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
- and -
Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK
1302 Avenida Ponce de León
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (833) 271-4502
Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com
- and -
Scott Summy, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com
- and -
Joseph Rice, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
Facsimile: (843) 216-9440
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA: Underpays Flight Instructors, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sav Kelly, writing for Yahoo!News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed in Grand Forks County civil court has the potential
to impact hundreds of UND flight instructors.
The lawsuit was brought about by Andrew Sangster, a former UND
flight instructor, on behalf of himself and other current and
former instructors he suspects were underpaid for their work.
Sangster worked for the John D. Odegard School of Aerospace
Sciences from approximately October 2019 to November 2021,
according to a complaint filed in the case.
During this time, he alleges he was only paid for student contact
hours -- the scheduled instruction time -- while regularly
performing work beyond that.
Sangster claims he and other instructors were not compensated for
time spent scheduling students for flight training; meeting with
them and answering their questions; filing electronic records such
as training comments, endorsements and course clears; waiting for
students to arrive at the airport; and spending time with students
when flights are canceled due to maintenance or weather
conditions.
The complaint says UND limited flight instructors from recording
more than 30 minutes of pre- and post-flight work time. The
university also required instructors to be at the airport at least
30 minutes before their student was scheduled to arrive, but
allegedly didn't compensate them to do so.
In January 2024, UND began paying instructors for additional work
time outside of student contact hours, but made no effort to
reimburse instructors for their prior work, according to the
complaint.
The plaintiff requests that the court find UND's conduct willful
and order the university to pay all alleged missing wages,
including any overtime, court costs and other fees as determined.
The lawsuit was originally filed in federal court in March but was
ultimately determined to be suited for the district court, and so
was dismissed and refiled in the proper court.
A summons was filed Thursday, Sept. 12, ordering UND to file an
answer to the complaint within 21 days after receipt.
The Herald reached out to UND for comment. On Tuesday afternoon,
Sept. 17, David Dodds, communications director, shared the
following statement:
"UND typically does not comment on specifics of ongoing legal
matters. The University can confirm that we're defending the
lawsuit and that we are confident our actions are consistent with
both state and federal laws." [GN]
US BANCORP: Butler Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PIFI
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Butler, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. U.S. BANCORP, Case No. 0:24-cv-03700-JWB-ECW
(S.D. Minn., Sept. 19, 2024), is brought against U.S. Bancorp for
its unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's personally identifiable
financial information ("PIFI") to a third party, Meta Platforms,
Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc. ("Meta" or "Facebook").
U.S. Bank monitors and records its customers' interaction with its
website while they are logged on to access their confidential
account information. U.S. Bank shares customer interactions through
its website with Meta, which owns, among other platforms, the
social networking website and app Facebook. U.S. Bank discloses
this information to Facebook using the Meta Pixel ("Pixel"), a
snippet of programming code U.S. Bank chose to install on its
website that sends information about its users to Facebook.
In this case, the information shared with Meta includes "onboarding
information": information obtained by U.S. Bank when a website user
begins or completes applying for one of its financial products.
Onboarding information is collected by U.S. Bank and sent to Meta
for the following products offered by U.S. Bank: Credit Card
applications; Money Market accounts; LGBTQ+ Family Planning Loans;
Loans and credit lines; Debt Consolidation; Home Repair Financing;
Private Seller Vehicle Loans; and Vehicle loans. Meta utilizes a
combination of the personal information obtained from U.S. Bank's
website about each consumer and other information gathered from
different sources for marketing and advertising purposes.
Under the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ("GLB Act"), financial
institutions, such as U.S. Bank, are prohibited from disclosing a
consumer's "personally identifiable financial information" without
advance notification and opt-out rights.
U.S. Bank's practice of disclosing its customers' personal
financial information to Meta violated Plaintiff's and other Class
Members' privacy rights under the GLB Act. U.S. Bank's conduct also
violated other related federal and state laws. Plaintiff brings
this action, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, for damages and equitable relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a user of U.S. Bank's website and has used U.S.
Bank' website on the same browsers and devices that he logs into
Facebook with, where he has an account.
U.S. Bank is a major financial services provider that offers
retail, business, wealth management, payment, commercial and
corporate, and investment services to customers across the country
and around the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Email: cmoore@reesellp.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
VAXART INC: Himmelberg Seeks Prelim Sealing Portions of Class Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc.
et al. (re VAXART, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No.
3:20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order preliminarily sealing portions of Plaintiffs' Reply in
Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of
Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel and
Exhibits M, O, P, and Q to the Declaration of Reed R. Kathrein in
support of Plaintiffs' Reply, which reference and/or quote another
party's materials that have been designated as confidential,
pending a final determination as to whether such material should be
sealed.
The Plaintiffs take no position regarding whether the documents
and/or material identified above should be sealed. Pursuant to
subsection (f)(3) of Local Rule 79-5, the designating parties—
Vaxart and the Armistice Defendants—have seven days to file a
declaration identifying the designated material they contend is
"sealable."
Vaxart is an American biotechnology company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of oral recombinant
vaccines administered using temperature-stable tablets that can be
stored and shipped without refrigeration.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mmVV4z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Raffi Melanson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
lucasg@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
raffim@hbsslaw.com
- and -
William C. Fredericks, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq.
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
wfredericks@scott-scott.com
jjacobson@scott-scott.com
- and -
Brian J. Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460,
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
Facsimile: (310) 388-0192
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
VISA INC: Old Jericho Loses Partial Summary Judgment Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01720
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margo Brodie entered an order the Hon.
Judge Margo Brodie entered an order denying Old Jericho Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment.
The Court finds that Old Jericho Plaintiffs "accepted" payment
cards within the meaning of the Settlement Agreement, and that Old
Jericho Plaintiffs are bound by the 2019 Rule 23(b)(3) Class
Settlement's Release.
In May of 2020, Old Jericho Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this
District against Visa and Mastercard, asserting violations of state
antitrust laws pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.
On March 15, 2024, Old Jericho Plaintiffs1 in this multidistrict
litigation moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a ruling
that "as a matter of law, the Old Jericho Plaintiffs are not bound
by the [2019 Rule 23(b)(3) Class Settlement's] Release and are
entitled to summary judgment on Defendants' defenses invoking the
Release."
On April 11, 2024, Defendants in the Old Jericho action opposed the
motion.
On April 25, 2024, a group of plaintiffs known as the Fikes
Plaintiffs, described as the "Branded Operators," and a standalone
plaintiff, Jack Rabbit LLC, opposed Old Jericho Plaintiffs' motion
with the permission of the Court.
On May 20, 2024, Old Jericho Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of
their motion.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational payment card services
corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FPJlNR at no extra
charge.[CC]
VOLATO GROUP: Terminated Employees Sue Over WARN Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Aero News Network reports that terminated employees have filed a
class action lawsuit against Volato for alleged violations of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. Submitted
on September 12, the complaint accuses the fractional jet company
of failing to provide 60 days' notice before executing mass
layoffs.
The class claimed that, towards the end of August, Volato fired
over 233 of their employees without giving any warning. This is a
clear breach of the WARN Act, which requires employers with over
100 employees to notify staff members at least 60 days before
significant layoffs or plant closings.
The plaintiffs also argue that Volato's actions have deprived them
of necessary compensation and benefits, causing significant
financial damage.
"This case is about holding Volato accountable for the harm it has
caused its employees," commented Ryan Barack, a Board Certified
Labor and Employment Attorney and lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
"Employers are required by law to provide notice before significant
layoffs, and Volato's failure to comply with the WARN Act has had a
devastating impact on its workforce."
The layoffs come during a rough period for Volato. The company
recently stooped to signing an aircraft management services
agreement with a competitor, flyExclusive. This could also allow
Volato to be purchased before the terms expire next year.
"This strategic move is expected to strengthen our position in the
market and provide new opportunities for growth," Volato's
termination letters stated. "However, as we transition through this
period, it has become necessary to adjust our workforce to better
align with our current and future operational needs."
The plaintiffs are searching for class certification under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allowing them to represent
all employees affected. Additionally, they are requesting
injunctive relief to ensure that Volato adheres to the WARN Act
moving forward. [GN]
WAKEFERN FOOD: Parties Must File Joint Report on Settlement Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lobel et al. v. Wakefern
Food Corp., Case No. 7:22-cv-06089-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Philip Halpern entered an order granting application to the extent
that the telephonic case management conference scheduled for Nov.
13, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. is converted to a pre-motion conference
regarding Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification.
-- The parties shall call the following number: (888) 398-2342;
access code 3456831.
-- Further, in light of the parties' representations in the Sept.
16,
2024 letter, discovery is deemed complete as of Sept. 16, 2024.
-- The parties are directed to file, by Oct. 30, 2024, a joint
letter
regarding the status of settlement and advising the Court
whether
they are requesting a referral to a magistrate judge for
settlement purposes, as was directed at the Aug. 8, 2024
conference.
Wakefern is the largest retailer-owned cooperative in the United
States, comprising 50 member companies who independently own and
operate supermarkets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hSFwdt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Westchester Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
WESTCHESTER PUTNAM COUNTIES HEAVY & HIGHWAY LABORERS LOCAL 60
BENEFITS FUND, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., ROSALIND BREWER, JAMES
KEHOE, JOHN DRISCOLL, JOHN STANDLEY, TIM WENTWORTH, and MANMOHAN
MAHAJAN, Case No. 1:24-cv-08559 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 17, 2024) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased Walgreens common stock between July 1, 2021
and June 26, 2024, inclusive, against Walgreens and certain of its
officers and executives, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On July 1, 2021, the first day of the Class Period, Walgreens
reported earnings for its fiscal third quarter of 2021, ended May
31, 2021—Brewer's first full quarter as the Company's CEO.
Then, on Oct. 14, 2021, Walgreens issued a press release announcing
a $5.2 billion "additional investment in VillageMD to advance its
strategic position in the delivery of value-based primary care."
Unbeknownst to investors, however, Walgreens' ability to scale
VillageMD to support the Company's growth initiatives was not going
according to plan, as Walgreens was botching the expansion of its
VillageMD partnership, the suit says.
The truth was partially revealed to investors on June 27, 2023,
when prior to the markets' open, Walgreens announced financial
results for the fiscal third quarter of 2023, ended May 31, 2023,
which came in below analysts' expectations—the Company's first
earnings miss in three years. The truth was fully revealed before
the markets opened on June 27, 2024, when Walgreens issued a press
release announcing disappointing financial results for the fiscal
third quarter of 2024, ended May 31, 2024—well below analysts'
expectations and forcing the Company to lower its fiscal 2024
guidance.
As investors digested this disclosure, the price of Walgreens
common stock dropped a stunning $3.47 per share, or over
22%—falling from a closing price of $15.66 per share on June 26,
2024, to a closing price of $12.19 per share on June 27, 2024—on
extraordinarily high trading volume.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
resulting decline in market value of the Company's common stock
when the truth was disclosed, the Plaintiff and other class members
have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff administers a retirement benefit plan of
approximately $250 million on behalf of more than 2,400 active,
retired, and deferred vested members and their beneficiaries.
Walgreens is a provider of retail, pharmacy, and healthcare
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 629-3737
Facsimile: (312) 357-0369
E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
Marco A. Dueñas, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com
ravan@saxenawhite.com
mduenas@saxenawhite.com
WALMART INC: Knight Sues Over Coffee Creamer's Deceptive Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
GIA KNIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06623 (E.D.N.Y., August 19, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Great Value
Original Coffee Creamer. According to the complaint, the Defendant
represents the product to contain about 500 servings per container
and that the serving size for the product is 1 tsp. (2g). However,
based on third-party laboratory testing, the product provides
consumers with only 386 servings, 23 percent fewer servings than
promised by its label. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the
product or would have paid less for it.
Walmart Inc. is a retail company, with a principal place of
business in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ariana V. Held, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, PA
305 Broadway, Suite 700
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (215) 500-3289
Email: ariana@avheld.com
WALMART INC: Rogolino Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mark Rogolino, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., Case No.
562024CA001358AXXXHC was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie County, Florida,
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Sept. 20, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-14308-XXXX.
The Plaintiff brings putative class claims against Walmart for
"Negligence" and "Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," and seeks,
among other relief an award of "compensatory and punitive damages,
including pre-judgment interest, and costs of this action," and
injunctive relief enjoining Walmart from charging or collecting
sales tax in Florida on delivery fees that are separately stated on
an invoice and can be avoided at the option or election of the
consumer.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Noah A. Finkel, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
Phone: (312) 460-5913
Facsimile: (312) 460-7913
Email: nfinkel@seyfarth.com
- and -
Phillip J Ebsworth, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 498-7012
Facsimile: (916) 288-6313
Email: pebsworth@seyfarth.com
jnordlander@seyfarth.com
WASSERSTROM HOLDINGS: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Initially OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Wasserstrom Holdings, Inc. Data
Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02070-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Michael Watson entered an order granting preliminary
approval of class action settlement:
-- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court
preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes only, the
Class
defined in the Settlement Agreement as follows:
"All individuals residing in the United States who were sent
a
notice by Wasserstrom informing them of the Data Incident
Wasserstrom discovered in April 2023. Excluded from the Class
are (1) the judges presiding over this Litigation, and
members
of their direct families; (2) the Defendant, their
subsidiaries,
parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in
which the Defendant or their parents have a controlling
interest, and their current or former officers and directors;
and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request
for
Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline."
-- The Court appoints Kevin Gmscinski and Gregory Coffey as the
Class
Representatives for the Class.
-- The Court provisionally finds that the Class Representatives
are
similarly situated to absent Class Members and therefore
typical
of the Class and that they will be adequate Class
Representatives.
-- The Court finds the following counsel are experienced and
adequate
counsel and appoints them as Class Counsel for the Settlement:
Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC, Philip Krzeski of
Chestnut Cambronne, and Dylan J. Gould ofMarkovits, Stock &
DeMarco LLC.
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on Mar. 31, 2025.
Wasserstrom is a restaurant supplier based in Columbus, Ohio with
distribution centers located across North America.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xI3hDP at no extra
charge.[CC]
WEBER TREE: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Escalona Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Escalona v. Weber Tree
Service, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-06159-MAV-MWP (W.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Marian W. Payson entered an amended scheduling
order:
File the mediation statement by: Oct. 25, 2024
Complete the first mediation session by: Jan. 31, 2025
Referral to mediation shall be terminated on: March 28,
2025
Mandatory disclosures shall be completed by: Oct. 30,
2024
Motions to join other parties or amend the Nov. 8, 2024
pleadings shall be filed by:
Any third party action shall be commenced Nov. 8, 2024
on or before:
Discovery relating to class certification Feb. 28, 2025
issues, including depositions shall be
completed on or before:
All motions to compel shall be filed by: Feb. 14,
2025
Any motion for class certification shall March 28,
2025
be filed by:
Weber is a local tree service and landscaping company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nO8Ea1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Matula Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thomas O. Matula, Jr., and all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. Wells Fargo & Company, Human
Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of Wells Fargo, Wells
Fargo Employee Benefit Review Committee, Case No. 3:24-cv-03504 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on Sept. 19, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-03703-JRT-TNL to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for E.R.I.S.A. - Employee
Benefits.
Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is an
American multinational financial services company with a
significant global presence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey P. Justman, Esq.
Kiera Murphy, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 766-8862
Email: jeff.justman@faegredrinker.com
kiera.murphy@faegredrinker.com
WELLWOOD 600: Public Accommodation Violates ADA, Rodriguez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WELLWOOD 600 ASSOCIATES, L.P. and DOLLAR TREE STORES,
INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-06581 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2024) alleges
that the Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff, and
all others similarly situated, on the basis of disability, in the
full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations of its public
accommodation in violation of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12182.
In 2022, 2023, and 2024, the Plaintiff had visited the Defendants'
public accommodation, however, he has had difficulties entering the
public accommodation because of their unlawfully inaccessible
doors. The entrance and exit doors at the public accommodation are
2 doors in a series. Each door has a closer. Therefore, if you push
open and release the door, it closes by itself, the suit says.
The Plaintiff resides less than 4 blocks miles from Defendant's
public accommodation and is frequently near it. The Plaintiff is
deterred from visiting Defendants' public accommodation because of
the existing accessibility barriers, the suit adds.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this suit for declaratory and
injunctive relief and, as a class action for all those similarly
situated, who, as persons who must use wheelchairs by reason of
various disabilities, and who use or desire to use the services and
accommodations offered to the public by the Defendants, are
protected by, and are beneficiaries of the ADA and New York State
Executive Law.
MR. Rodriguez is paralyzed and cannot walk. As a result, he uses a
wheelchair for mobility.
Wellwood 600 owns or leases the commercial property which houses
the public accommodation named Dollars Tree located at 660 N.
Wellwood Avenue, Lindenhurst, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C.
Telephone: (646) 290-8258
Facsimile: (646) 435-4376
E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com
WEST COAST LIFE: Milan Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Keir Milan and Michael Tanaka, as individuals.
On behalf of themselves and all others similarly v. WEST COAST LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2024CUIC028638 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Ventura, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Sept. 20, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-08113.
Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs asserts four causes of
action on behalf of the class, including: breach of contract;
unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code (the "UCL");
financial elder abuse under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code; and bad faith.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution
pursuant to the UCL, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys'
fees.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles K. Chineduh, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 596-4500
Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
Email: Charles.Chineduh@maynardnexsen.com
WESTECH SECURITY: Court Narrows Claims in Carrasquillo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA CARRASQUILLO, on
behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v.
WESTECH SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-04931-MKV-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The Clerk of the Court is requested to terminate docket entry 30.
Defendant's argument, however, focuses entirely on these more
general allegations to the exclusion of Plaintiff's explicit and
more specific allegations that she did, indeed, work more than
forty hours a week, each week, throughout her employment. And as
the Court already discussed above, Plaintiff's allegations with
respect to her hours worked are sufficient to state a plausible
FLSA overtime claim.
To the extent Defendant argues that these allegations are
inconsistent or insufficient as to "other employees," that is a
question with respect to Plaintiff's collective and/or class
allegations and not an argument against the FLSA overtime claim
that Plaintiff asserts on behalf of herself specifically. For the
reasons discussed, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's FLSA
overtime claim is denied.
The Plaintiff brings this action against her former employer,
Westech Security and Investigation Inc., asserting claims under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), including claims for unpaid overtime wages, failure to
pay wages at a prescribed frequency, and improper record keeping.
The Plaintiff was formerly employed as a security guard by
Defendant Westech, a security and private investigation company,
for 8 months from approximately April 2022 through December 31,
2022.
Westech offers a variety of security services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8HDJoU at no extra
charge.[CC]
WEXFORD HEALTH: Class Cert Filing in Spurlock Amended to Dec. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN SPURLOCK; HEATHER
SMITH; and SHAWN ZMUDZINSKI, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00476 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Chambers
entered a
third amended scheduling order:
1. Joinder and Amendments
Motions for Plaintiffs to join other parties or to amend the
pleadings shall be filed by November 11, 2024.
Motions for Defendant to join other parties or to amend the
pleadings shall be filed by December 9, 2024.
2. Discovery
The parties shall complete all depositions by July 21, 2025,
or
160 days after class certification.
3. Class Certification:
A motion seeking class certification shall be filed by Dec.
16,
2024.
Opposition to the motion for class certification shall be
filed
by Feb. 10, 2025.
Any reply to the motion for class certification shall be
filed
by Mar. 24, 2025.
Wexford is an American healthcare services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UmUGBf at no extra
charge.[CC]
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Spector Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Karen Spector, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., Case No.
CGC-24-617422 was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on Sept. 20, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-06617.
The Complaint asserts a claim for violation of Arizona's Telephone,
Utility and Communication Service Records Act ("Arizona Records
Act"), on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class of other
similarly situated individuals located in Arizona arising from
Defendant's alleged use of tracking pixels in its marketing
emails.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq.
Alyssa Sones, Esq.
Patrick Rubalcava, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
Phone: 310.228.3700
Facsimile: 310.228.3701
Email: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
jramsey@sheppardmullin.com
baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com
asones@sheppardmullin.com
prubalcava@sheppardmullin.com
ZARBEE'S INC: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Set for Dec. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL LOPEZ and DAMANY
BROWNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ZARBEE'S, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-04465-CRB (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles Breyer entered a class certification
scheduling order:
Event Deadline
Zarbee's Daubert Motion(s) Regarding Sept. 27, 2024
Plaintiffs' Class Certification Experts
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Zarbee's Oct. 25, 2024
Daubert Motion(s) Regarding Plaintiffs'
Class Certification Experts
Zarbee's Reply in Support of its Daubert Nov. 12, 2024
Motion(s) Regarding Plaintiffs' Class
Certification Experts
Hearings on (i) Plaintiffs' Motion for Dec. 6, 2024
Class Certification and (ii) Zarbee's
Daubert Motion(s) Regarding Plaintiffs'
Class Certification Experts
Zarbee's produces pharmaceutical products. The Company offers
vitamins, supplements, immune support, throat relief, and other
related products.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j2r08J at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
Joshua Kipnees, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Telephone: (212) 336-2110
Facsimile: (212) 336-2111
E-mail: sazalesin@pbwt.com
jkipnees@pbwt.com
- and -
Gary T. Lafayette, Esq.
Brian H. Chun, Esq.
SANDERS ROBERTS LLP
1300 Clay Street, Suite 810
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 357-4600
Facsimile: (415) 357-4605
E-mail: glafayette@sandersroberts.com
bchun@sandersroberts.com
ZURICH AMERICAN: Hale Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kystal Hale, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV015938 was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
on Sept. 20, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-at-01207.
The Complaint alleges four wage-and-hour class action causes of
action against Zurich for allegedly "failing to pay overtime wages,
in violation of Labor Code; failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, in violation of Labor Code; failing to reimburse
employees for all work-related expenses, in violation of Labor
Code; and engaging in unfair business practices in violation of
Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code, and the
applicable IWC Wage Orders."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Noah A. Finkel, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
Phone: (312) 460-5913
Facsimile: (312) 460-7913
Email: nfinkel@seyfarth.com
- and -
Phillip J Ebsworth, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 498-7012
Facsimile: (916) 288-6313
Email: pebsworth@seyfarth.com
jnordlander@seyfarth.com
[*] Court Pares Claims in Putative Class Suit Against NFT Companies
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that on August 16, 2024, Judge Federico A. Morena
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a
putative class action asserting claims under Sections 5, 12(a)(1),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against an NFT company,
certain of its affiliates, and their celebrity promoter. Harper v.
O'Neal, No. 23-21912, 2024 WL 3845444 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2024).
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants had impermissibly engaged in the
offer and sale of unregistered securities when they promoted a
collection of non-fungible tokens ("NFTs") allegedly designed to be
used in a virtual world (or "metaverse") that the company planned
to build. The Court held that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged
that a celebrity promoter of the NFTs was a "seller" under Section
12 of the Securities Act, but that certain allegations were
time-barred, and the promoter was not a "control person" under
Section 15 of the Securities Act.
The Court first addressed the question of whether the promoter was
a statutory "seller," a status that the Court explained is not
limited to those who transfer title or interest in property but
also extends to those who "successfully solicit" the purchase.
O'Neal, 2024 WL 3845444, (citing Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622
(1988)). The Court rejected defendants' argument that the promoter
was not a statutory seller because he had not communicated
personally with plaintiffs. Instead, the Court held that posting
videos online and using social media to sell NFTs was sufficient to
support a claim of solicitation, just as newspaper and radio
advertisements are. (citing Wildes v. BitConnect Int'l PLC, 25
F.4th 1341 (11th Cir. 2022) (holding that "keeping up with the
times" means "podcasts, social media posts, or online videos and
web links" can be understood as "conveying solicitations.")).
The Court further held, however, that the celebrity promoter was
not a "control person" within the meaning of Section 15 of the
Securities Act, because plaintiffs had not alleged that the
promoter had day-to-day involvement with the company or had the
power to control its actions. Allegations that the promoter had
founded the project, assembled a management team, and been
essential to the creation of the NFTs at issue were not sufficient.
Addressing statute of limitations issues, the Court held that
allegations regarding one type of NFT at issue -- which had been
added in an amended complaint -- related back to the filing of the
original complaint, because the original complaint had referenced,
for example, "tokens and NFTs" and "various NFT incentives," such
that defendants "could have reasonably expected that the
[additional] token claim would have been brought against them."
Plaintiffs' claims were time-barred, however, as to alleged NFT
purchases made more than one year before the litigation was filed.
Finally, the Court rejected defendants' argument that the
particular NFTs at issue were not "securities" subject to the
Securities Act. Rather, the Court agreed with plaintiffs that the
particular tokens here qualified as an "investment contract" -- one
of the definitions of "security" under the Securities Act --
because they involved "(1) an investment of money, (2) a common
enterprise, and (3) the expectation of profits to be derived solely
from the efforts of others." Specifically, the Court held that
defendants' NFT project constituted a "common enterprise" because
"investors [were] dependent upon the expertise or efforts of the
investment promoter for their returns." The Court noted that the
NFTs here were to be used by the company to create both the
metaverse and a "decentralized autonomous organization for
incubating innovative projects" -- such that "the success or
failure of the overall investment lies in the hands of
[d]efendants."
The Court further held that plaintiffs satisfied the "expectation
of profits" prong because defendants "controlled the website and
marketplace where [the NFTs] were bought and sold," had
intellectual property and other ownership rights in the NFTs, and
made clear that they were attempting to "develop and grow the
entire operation, which could lead an objective investor to see a
possibility of investment return." Moreover, the Court determined
that plaintiffs were not motivated by a "desire to use or consume
the item purchased," including because the metaverse in which the
tokens could be used had not yet been created. The Court emphasized
that it was ruling only on the pleadings at the motion‑to-dismiss
stage and was not reaching the question of whether all NFTs qualify
as investment contracts. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds $4.7MM Verdict Against Volkswagen AG
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald V. Miller, Jr., writing for lawsuit-information-center.com
reports that Washington state appeals court upheld a $4.7 million
verdict in favor of the estate of a mechanic who died of
mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos in Volkswagen's brake pads.
Volkswagen AG (VW) sought to overturn the verdict, arguing that the
evidence and jury instructions were flawed, but the court rejected
these claims.
The three-judge panel found sufficient evidence to support the
jury's decision, including that the man would have followed
asbestos warnings had they been provided. The court noted that VW
knew about the risks of asbestos but failed to provide warnings on
its brake products. Additionally, the court dismissed VW's
arguments regarding jury instructions, including requests to
include instructions on "but-for" causation and industry customs.
The panel concluded that these instructions were unnecessary, as VW
could still make its arguments during the trial.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Red River Talc Files for Ch. 11 to Resolve Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson announced that its subsidiary, Red River Talc
LLC, filed a voluntary prepackaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas to
fully and finally resolve all current and future claims related to
ovarian cancer arising from cosmetic talc litigation against the
Company and its affiliates in the United States.
Red River filed the bankruptcy case after it received the support
of the overwhelming majority (approximately 83%) of current
claimants for the proposed bankruptcy plan.
-- The support far exceeds the 75% approval threshold required by
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to secure confirmation of the Plan.
-- The Plan is also supported by the Future Claims Representative,
an attorney representing the future claimants.
"The overwhelming support for the Plan demonstrates the Company's
extensive, good-faith efforts to resolve this litigation for the
benefit of all stakeholders," said Erik Haas, Worldwide Vice
President of Litigation, Johnson & Johnson. "This Plan is fair and
equitable to all parties and, therefore, should be expeditiously
confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court."
After extensive negotiations with counsel for claimants who
initially opposed the Plan, Red River agreed to increase its
contribution to the settlement by $1.75 billion to approximately $8
billion.
*********
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 ***