/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240930.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, September 30, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 196
Headlines
1709 CORPORATION: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, McDaniel Says
23ANDME INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action For $30-Mil.
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Jenkins Sues to Recover Unpaid OT
AGENUS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 5
AIDS HEALTHCARE: Settles Tenant Class Suit Over Squalid Conditions
ALEC FOOD: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ALLARITY THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Nov 12
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Seeks to Exclude Expert Opinions
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Rittman Suit
AMERICARE SYSTEMS: Filing of Conditional Cert Due April 30, 2025
ANTONIO LOPEZ-FIGUEROA: Public Employers Loses Summary Judgment
APPLE INC: Sued Over Unfair Charges on Music Streaming Services
APPLIED DIGITAL: Court Dismisses McConnell Suit
ASHLYNN MARKETING: Court Narrows Claims in J.J. FAC
AT&T INC: Wallace Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Private Info
AUTODESK INC: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
AVIS RENT A CAR: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Rivera Alleges
BEVERLYMARK INC: Conditional Status of Collective Partly OK'd
BIG FISH: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Campos Suit
BK21 TEA: Faces Zhu Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
BLUE DIAMOND: White Files Mislabeling Suit Over Almond Products
BMO BANK: Faces Jones Suit Over Deposited Item Return Fees
BOTANIC TONICS: Reaches Settlement Deal in Botanic Tonics Suit
BROTHERS OF CHRISTIAN: Face Sexual Assault Class Action Lawsuit
BUFFALO, NY: Class Cert Hearing in Black Suit Set for Oct. 23
CARLE FOUNDATION: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Waggoner Says
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Court Extends Time to File Sur-reply
CAT ROCK: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Saunders Suit Claims
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY: Settlement Class Gets Conditional Status
CHADWICK DOTSON: Class Discovery in Puryear Suit Due Nov. 25
CHAMA VALLEY: Mercure Sues School District Over Unpaid Overtime
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Info, Hill Says
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Kirksey Sues Over Data Breach
CHARTER COM: Morris Asks Court to Overrule Jurisdiction Objections
CHRIS REYKDAL: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement
COMMUNITY CARE: Filing of Responses Due Oct. 9
CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Moore Due Oct. 3
CONTINENT 8: Underpays Data Center Technicians, Zabik Suit Claims
CONVERSE INC: Faces Price Class Action Suit Over TikTok Software
CREDIT BUREAU: Class Certification Bid Filing Due April 18, 2025
CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Faces Unfair Competition Suit in TX Court
DANOS SEASONING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Says
DAVE'S KILLER: Loses Bid to Dismiss Swartz Suit
DEERE & COMPANY: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Bunch Suit
DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
DONALD FISCHETTO: Cruz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
DTO ALTERATIONS: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
EMPIRE FORD INC: Teixeira Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
EOS ENERGY: $8.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 17
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ritchey Suit Alleges
EXTRA BUTTER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Agnone Suit Says
FACEBOOK INC: Class Certification Hearings Continued to Oct. 31
FACTS ON DEMAND: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 23, 2025
FATHOM REALTY: Agrees to Settle Conspiracy Suit for $2.95-Mil.
FCA US: Court Allows Additional Discovery in Clayton
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Court Extends Discovery-Related Deadlines
FIVE BELOW: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Says
FLOWER POWER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Suit Says
FLOWERS FOODS: Salgado Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action
FOOT & ANKLE: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Doe Suit Says
FREEDOM FOREVER: Civil Standing Order Entered in Clark Class Suit
FTX TRADING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Securities Sale
GAINWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Batchelder Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
GALDERMA LABORATORIES: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Consumer Suit
GLS US FREIGHT: Castro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GOOD EARTH: Faces Young Suit Over Blind's Access to Online Store
GOOGLE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 16, 2025
GOOGLE LLC: Republican AGs Push Settlement Payment to Suit Victims
GREENSKY INC: Belyea Seeks to File "Confidential" Docs Under Seal
HOME PARTNERS: Richmond Seeks OK of Amended Class Cert Bid
HORMEL FOODS: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in IL
HORMEL FOODS: Settlement in Brown Suit for Court Nod
HORMEL FOODS: Settlement in Securities Suit for Court Nod
HOSPITAL SISTERS: Bovard Suit Alleges Inadequate Data Security
HP INC: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
IMMACULATE HOME: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Response
INHOUSE PHYSICIANS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cooper Alleges
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Court Narrows Claims in Keown Suit
ITG COMMUNICATIONS: Stenberg Seeks Extension to File Reply
JUPITER TOWN: Feltzin Files ADA Class Suit
JUUL LABS: Hattiesburg Schools Secure Funds From Class Settlement
KATZ NANNIS: Williams Alleges Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info
KELLY-MOORE PAINT: Court Narrows Claims in Morris Suit
KOLD TRANS: Court Lifts Stay of Hamilton Action
LATEKIRO INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Bunting Claims
LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadlines
LLR INC: Ponkey Appeals Suit Dismissal and Transfer Bid Denial
MENDES PAINTING: Faces Morales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
META PLATFORMS: Isgur Sues Over Illegal Access to Facebook Accounts
META PLATFORMS: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Privacy Class Action
MID-FLORIDA PATHOLOGY: Hearing on Collective Status Set for Nov. 18
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Seeks to Hold Renewed Class Cert Bid in Abeyance
MISS KITTY'S: Plaintiffs Fail to Identify Potential Class Members
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Seeks to Seal Documents in Wallenstein
MONGODB INC: Faces Baxter Shareholder Action
MONSANTO COMPANY: Witt Suit Transferred to N.D. California
NAPCO SECURITY: Faces Zornberg Securities Suit in EDNY
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Mackey Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
NC ACCIDENT: Saunders Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NEW FORTRESS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 18
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Narrows Claims in G.K. Suit
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Judge OKs Class-Action Status for Foster Care Suit
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Can File Opposition Under Seal
NORTHWOOD UNIVERSITY: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NOVANT HEALTH: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Corley Suit Says
NYC HARLEM: Final Confirmation on Provisional Class Cert Sought
OHIO DEW: B.H. Sues Over Educational Harm and Denial
OKTA INC: $60MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 8
OKTA INC: Final Hearing on Settlement Approval Set for Nov. 8
ONE SOURCE: Class Action Settlement in Burak Suit Gets Final Nod
ORACLE CORP: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $115-Mil.
PARETO EFFICIENT: Walther Seeks to Certify ESOP Participant Class
PARETO EFFICIENT: Walther Suit Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nelson Due Jan. 15, 2025
PERRY CONCRETE: Sick Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
PHARMACARE US: Sunderland Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
PRACTICE RESOURCES: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Initial OK
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Appeals Remand Order in Turner Contract Suit
QUEBEC: Court OKs Class Suit Over Temporary Foreign Worker Program
RALLYBRANDS LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind People, Young Says
RED OAK SANITATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Craig Suit Alleges
REDWIRE CORP: Bid for Leave to Amend Under Advisement
RESONANT WAVES: Walkup Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
RHM RESTAURANT: Dispositive Bids in Vokava Suit Due Oct. 4
RICHEMONT NORTH: Voelker Sues Over Discontinued Products' Warranty
RIVERSBORNE REALTY: Arias Suit Asserts Illegal Debt Collection
ROBLOX CORP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Gambling-Based Class Suit
RODCO REDDING LP: Taylor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RUSHMORE LOAN: Court Narrows Claims in Contee Suit
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Davenport Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
SANDISK SSDS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 15, 2025
SARATOGA HOSPITAL: Mismanages Retirement Fund, Duguay Alleges
SAVOR BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind People, Raheel Says
SCHENKER INC: Class Cert Hearing Continued to Jan. 16, 2025
SCHNADER HARRISON: Class Cert. Bid in Bennett Extended to Dec. 6
SEAGRAPE SQUARE: Feltzin Sues Over Disabled's Access to Property
SELECT REHABILITATION: McLaughlin Bid for Protective Order OK'd
SHANER OPERATING: Continuation of Class Cert Deadline Sought
SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Giana Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
SHOWCASE KITCHENS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Alleges
SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court
SPACE COAST: Leyva Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Filing
SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Faces Kogut Securities Suit
STERICYCLE INC: Holliday Seeks Account Managers' Unpaid Overtime
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Court Terminates Pending Bids in Bernard Suit
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Vehicles Have Defective Mirrors, Robinson Says
SUMMIT NATIONAL BANK: Purnell Files Suit in D. Wyoming
SUN GEORGE: Underpays Construction Staff, Menjivar Says
SUPERMERCADOS MAXIMO: Disabled Can't Access Property, Mass Alleges
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over FLSA Violations
T.C. RESTAURANT: Beers Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
TELADOC HEALTH: Faces Ochoa Class Action Suit Over TikTok Software
TEXFC LLC: Sumlin Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
THEORY STORES: Quiroz Suit Seeks to Recover Regular, OT Pay
TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Suit for COPPA Violations
TOWNE PARK: Rojas Class Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
TRC STAFFING: Burke Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Filing Deadline
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE: Settlement in Sellers Gets Final Nod
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Edge Case Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Proceedings
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Edge Wins Class Certification
TYCO FIRE: Burlington Opted Out of PFAS Class Suit Settlements
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: $200MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 5
UNIFI AVIATION: Bryant Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNITED SITE: Garcia Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
UNITED STATES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Mathis Due Oct. 3
VISA INC: Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions Tossed
VOLUMETRIC BUILDING: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WELLS FARGO: Filing for Class Status Bid Due March 24, 2025
WELLS FARGO: Second Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Patterson
WILLIAM LEE: Parties Must File Supplemental Briefs by Oct. 1
WINIX GLOBAL: Faces Debari Suit Over Air Purifiers' False Ads
WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Class Cert Bid Filing in Milito Due Nov. 6
WYETH INC: Class Cert Filing Due May 22, 2025
WYNN RESORTS: Settles Shareholder Class Action Suit for $70-Mil.
*********
1709 CORPORATION: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, McDaniel Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIERRA MCDANIEL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1709 CORPORATION d/b/a LICKITY SPLITZ
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00652-amb (W.D. Wis.,
Sept. 17, 2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor
practices and policies in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Wisconsin wage and hour law.
The complaint alleges the Defendant's uniform policies and
practices of failing to pay minimum wages and failing to pay
overtime premium wages in violation of the FLSA and Wisconsin wage
and hour law. In addition, the Defendant has had a uniform policy
and practice of retaining portions of the putative class members'
tips for itself. Finally, the Defendant has had a uniform policy
and practice of making deductions from wages earned or due. As a
result, the Defendant has failed and continues to fail to properly
compensate Ms. McDaniel and similarly situated employees for all
hours worked, says the suit.
Plaintiff McDaniel and members of the FLSA Minimum Wage Class, the
FLSA Overtime Class, and the FLSA Tip Class worked as dancers for
Defendant at times in the three years preceding the filing of this
action.
1709 Corporation operates a club named Lickity Splitz Gentlemen's
Club that provides dancers for its customers' entertainment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
Connor J. Clegg, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
5150 North Port Washington Road, Suite 243
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Telephone: (414) 271-8650
Facsimile: (414) 207-6079
E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
cclegg@hq-law.com
23ANDME INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action For $30-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------
Gabby Lee, writing for Security Daily Review, reports that DNA
testing giant 23andMe has agreed to pay $30 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit stemming from a data breach that compromised
the personal information of 6.4 million customers in 2023. The
proposed settlement, filed in a San Francisco federal court and
awaiting judicial approval, includes cash payments for affected
customers, which will be distributed within ten days of final
approval.
"23andMe believes the settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable," the company stated in a memorandum filed on Friday,
Sept. 20.
The settlement addresses claims that 23andMe failed to adequately
safeguard user privacy and neglected to inform customers about the
targeted nature of the breach, where hackers reportedly offered
stolen data for sale on the dark web.
The Breach: A Timeline of Events
The data breach, which occurred in October 2023, involved
unauthorized access to customer profiles through compromised
accounts. Hackers exploited credentials stolen from other breaches
to gain access to 23andMe accounts, a tactic known as credential
stuffing.
Following the discovery of the breach, 23andMe implemented measures
to prevent similar incidents, including requiring customers to
reset passwords and enabling two-factor authentication by default
starting in November.
However, the damage was already done. Threat actors leaked data
profiles belonging to 4.1 million individuals in the United Kingdom
and 1 million Ashkenazi Jews on the unofficial 23andMe subreddit
and hacking forums like BreachForums.
In December, 23andMe confirmed that data for 6.9 million customers,
including information on 6.4 million U.S. residents, was downloaded
in the breach. This included health reports and raw genotype data,
stolen over a five-month credential-stuffing attack from April to
September.
The Class action Settlement and the Lawsuits
The data breach sparked multiple class-action lawsuits, prompting
23andMe to amend its Terms of Use in November 2023, a move met with
criticism from customers. The company later clarified that the
changes aimed to simplify the arbitration process.
The proposed settlement, which is still awaiting judicial approval,
represents a significant step towards addressing the concerns
raised by the data breach.
The 23andMe Data Breach Settlement Details
The $30 million settlement will cover approximately 6.9 million
23andMe users whose data was compromised in the breach. To be
eligible for the settlement, users must have been residents of the
US on August 11, 2023.
The settlement includes various forms of compensation for affected
users:
-- Extraordinary Claims: Users who can prove they suffered
significant financial or emotional hardship as a direct result of
the breach can receive up to $10,000. This includes costs
associated with identity fraud, falsified tax returns, physical
security systems, and mental health treatment.
-- State-Specific Payments: Residents of Alaska, California,
Illinois, and Oregon, which have specific genetic privacy laws,
will receive payments of around $100.
-- Health Information Stolen: Users whose personal health
information was compromised will receive a $100 payment.
23andMe's Commitment to Enhanced Security
As part of the settlement, 23andMe has agreed to strengthen its
security protocols. These include:
-- Protections against credential-stuffing attacks: This will
involve implementing measures to detect and prevent attempts to use
stolen credentials from other breaches to access 23andMe accounts.
-- Mandatory two-factor authentication for all users: This will
add an extra layer of security to user accounts, requiring users to
provide two forms of authentication before accessing their data.
-- Annual cybersecurity audits: This will ensure that 23andMe's
security measures are regularly reviewed and updated to address
emerging threats.
Beyond Security Enhancements
23andMe has also agreed to:
-- Create and maintain a data breach incident response plan: This
plan will outline the steps the company will take in the event of a
future data breach, ensuring a swift and effective response.
-- Stop retaining personal data for inactive or deactivated
accounts: This will minimize the amount of sensitive data stored by
23andMe, reducing the potential impact of future breaches.
-- Provide an updated Information Security Program to all
employees during annual training sessions: This will ensure that
all employees are aware of the company's security policies and
procedures, and are equipped to handle sensitive data responsibly.
The Impact of the Settlement
While the settlement does not absolve 23andMe of responsibility for
the data breach, it represents a significant step towards
addressing the concerns of affected customers. The financial
compensation and security enhancements outlined in the settlement
aim to provide a measure of justice and reassurance to those whose
personal information was compromised.
The settlement also serves as a reminder of the importance of
robust cybersecurity practices for companies that handle sensitive
personal data. The breach highlights the need for companies to
prioritize data security, implement strong authentication measures,
and regularly review and update their security protocols to
mitigate the risk of data breaches. [GN]
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Jenkins Sues to Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------
SANTA JENKINS, individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v.
ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., and DMC-MEMPHIS, LLC, d/b/a DELTA
SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, Case No. 2:24-cv-02663-TLP-CGC (W.D. Tenn.,
Sept. 18, 2024) is brought against Defendants as a multi-plaintiff
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other
similarly situated hourly-paid employees.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the FLSA by
failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours
worked over 80 within proper bi-weekly pay periods at one and
one-half rimes their regular hourly rate of pay -- during all times
material to this action.
Plaintiff Jenkins has been employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid
nurse.
Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. owns Delta Specialty Hospital, an
inpatient hospital offering medical and psychiatric services in
Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
jbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
AGENUS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 5
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of securities of Agenus Inc. (NASDAQ: AGEN) between
January 23, 2023 and July 17, 2024, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important November 5, 2024 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Agenus securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Agenus class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28683 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than November 5, 2024. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the combination therapy of
botensilimab, an antigen 4 blocking antibody that is in a Phase 2
clinical trial for the treatment of pancreatic cancer and melanoma,
and balstilimab, an anti-PD-1 antagonist that has completed a Phase
2 clinical trial to treat second line cervical cancer, was less
effective than defendants had led investors to believe; (2)
accordingly, botensilimab and balstilimab's clinical results, as
well as their regulatory and commercial prospects, were overstated;
and (3) as a result, Agenus' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Agenus class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28683 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
AIDS HEALTHCARE: Settles Tenant Class Suit Over Squalid Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Dillon of Los Angeles Times reports that the nonprofit AIDS
Healthcare Foundation will pay current and former tenants of a Skid
Row residential hotel $575,000 to resolve a long-running
class-action lawsuit over conditions at its property.
Residents of the Madison Hotel alleged pervasive problems,
including mold, vermin, and plumbing and electrical issues that
they said the foundation has failed to fix.
The case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2020,
and the settlement was reached Monday, September 16, when the trial
was scheduled to begin. A series of rulings from Judge William
Highberger had narrowed the tenants' claims so that they could seek
rent reimbursements only due to conditions in the building's common
areas. Most of the 200 residents in the century-old, single-room
occupancy hotel share bathroom facilities on each floor.
Jennifer Kramer, an attorney representing the tenants, said the
amount of the settlement represents about 25% of rent paid during
the 4 1/2 year-period at issue. Residents who lived at the Madison
the entire time would get close to $5,000 each, she said.
"We think we worked out a deal that was just as good as if we went
to trial," Kramer said.
The figure does not include attorneys' fees, which the plaintiffs'
lawyers continue to seek.
The settlement requires Kramer to provide a statement on tenants'
behalf acknowledging that the foundation has invested significant
resources into improving and upgrading the Madison as part of an
effort to improve conditions in Skid Row.
The foundation paid $8 million for the property in 2017. Foundation
officials say they've since paid $7 million in repairs and upgrades
to the Madison.
Foundation spokesperson Jacki Schechner said the settlement "fully
vindicated" the nonprofit, pointing to Kramer's statement.
"The small payments made to 300 residents recognized that they
experienced certain hardships while the building was being
improved," Schechner said in a statement.
Besides the financial settlement, the agreement requires the
foundation to consult with experts and receive training on
maintenance and management issues at the Madison. The foundation
also agreed to hire a consultant to assess the building's
elevator.
Last year, the foundation paid at least $832,000 to settle a
separate lawsuit from elderly and disabled tenants who alleged they
were stuck in their apartments or had to sleep in the lobby because
of the elevator's failures. Since the settlement, the elevator has
continued to malfunction.
In April, the foundation won a $1.5-million default judgment
against the Madison's prior owner, who the nonprofit alleged failed
to disclose the elevator's condition.
Since buying the Madison, the nonprofit, which received $2.5
billion in revenue last year largely from its chain of pharmacies,
has acquired more than a dozen underused low-income buildings in
Los Angeles and worked to renovate them and lease rooms to
tenants.
A Times investigation last year found that many of the foundation's
more than 1,300 residents live in squalid conditions, with dozens
under the threat of eviction.
The foundation still faces multiple lawsuits from its tenants over
conditions at the Madison and elsewhere.
The foundation is involved in multiple initiatives on the November
statewide ballot. It's sponsoring Proposition 33, which would
expand rent control in California after two similar initiatives
failed in 2018 and 2020. It's also defending itself against
Proposition 34, which is financed by the California Apartment
Assn., the foundation's opponents in the rent control fight. If
passed, Proposition 34 would in effect ban the foundation from
funding political and housing campaigns. [GN]
ALEC FOOD: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
NORMANDY RAFAEL HERNANDEZ MARTINEZ and IRIS MARISOL CHAVEZ RIVAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ALEC FOOD CORP. d/b/a MET FRESH MARKETPLACE d/b/a
ASSOCIATED SUPERMARKET and ARNALDO ALMONTE, as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06525 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2024)
arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide an additional hour of pay at minimum wage
for each day worked more than 10 hours, failure to pay wages for
all hours worked, failure to furnish with a written wage notice,
and failure to provide with wage statements.
Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants as a butcher and
stocker while performing other miscellaneous duties from October
2021 until December 2022.
Plaintiff Rivas worked for the Defendants as a food wrapper and
cleaner while performing other miscellaneous duties from April 2021
until December 2022.
Alec Food Corp., d/b/a Met Fresh Marketplace d/b/a Associated
Supermarket, is a New York-based supermarket company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
ALLARITY THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Nov 12
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
November 12, 2024 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Allarity
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Allarity" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALLR)
securities between May 17, 2022 and July 19, 2024, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
Investors suffering losses on their Allarity investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at (215) 638-4847 or by
email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On February 6, 2023, Allarity disclosed that it had "received a
letter to produce documents from the SEC and that stated that the
staff of the SEC is conducting an investigation . . . to determine
if violations of the federal securities laws have occurred" in
connection with "disclosures relating to submissions,
communications and meetings with the FDA regarding our NDA for
Dovitinib or Dovitinib-DRP." On this news, Allarity's stock price
fell 3.8% to close at $0.228 per share on February 6, 2023.
Then, on December 11, 2023, Allarity disclosed that its CEO had
been terminated from his role "and all other positions with the
Company and its subsidiaries." On this news, Allarity's stock price
fell 13.4% to close at $0.486 per share on December 11, 2023.
Then, on July 22, 2024, Allarity disclosed that it had received a
Wells Notice from the SEC "relating to the Company's previously
disclosed SEC investigation," advising that "[t]he Wells Notice
relates to the Company's disclosures regarding meetings with the
[FDA] regarding the Company's NDA for Dovitinib or Dovitinib-DRP,
which was submitted to the FDA in 2021"; that, per the Company's
understanding, "all conduct relating to the SEC Wells Notice
occurred during or prior to fiscal year 2022"; and "that three of
its former officers received Wells Notices from the SEC relating to
the same conduct." On this news, Allarity's stock price fell
$0.004, or 2.4%, to close at $0.164 per share on July 22, 2024,
thereby injuring investors further.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Defendants had overstated the Dovitinib NDA's continued
regulatory prospects; (2) Allarity and three of its former officers
had engaged in illegal, illicit, and/or otherwise improper conduct
in connection with the Dovitinib NDA and/or the Dovitinib-DRP PMA;
(3) the foregoing misconduct subjected the Company to an increased
risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and enforcement
action, as well as significant legal, monetary, and reputational
harm; (4) following Allarity's announcement that it was, in fact,
being investigated for wrongdoing in connection with the Dovitinib
NDA and/or the Dovitinib-DRP PMA, the Company downplayed the
substantial likelihood that an enforcement action would result from
such investigation; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Allarity securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 12,
2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
(215) 638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASIBEL CANCHOLA, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
application for leave to file documents under seal.
The Plaintiffs Jasibel Canchola, Carlos Ochoa, Richard Curtis, and
Robert Souza apply for leave to file under seal the following
documents submitted in support of their Reply In Support Of Their
Motion for Class Certification: the Reply, Exhibit 100 to the
Declaration of Benjamin A. Kaplan submitted in support of the same,
and Exhibits B-I to the Declaration of Ed Wallace, submitted in
support of the forthcoming Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and
Testimony of Paul Oyer.
Allstate offers insurance for car, home, rental, motorcycle and
more.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZJBlLv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
601 S Figueroa St Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (844) 622-6469
Facsimile: (213) 622-6019
E-mail: gnelson@nflawfirm.com
gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com
- and -
Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
Erin K. Dickinson, Esq.
Benjamin Kaplan, Esq.
James Tilton, Esq.
CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
4532 N Oakland Ave
Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
Telephone: (414) 210-3868
E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
ekd@cruegerdickinson.com
bak@cruegerdickinson.com
jlt@cruegerdickinson.com
- and -
Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
Mark R. Miller, Esq.
Matthew J. Goldstein, Esq.
WALLACE MILLER
150 N Wacker Dr No. 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 626-9760
E-mail: eaw@wallacemiller.com
mrm@wallacemiller.com
mjg@wallacemiller.com
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Seeks to Exclude Expert Opinions
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASIBEL CANCHOLA, et. al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court on Oct. 17, 2024, for an order
excluding the opinions of Professor Oyer in the expert report that
the Defendant submitted in support of its opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs' Motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence
702 on the grounds that Professor Oyer's opinions that Allstate
already reimbursed expenses, and that indemnification for
unreimbursed expenses owed under Labor Code section 2802 is not
measured by the amount of unreimbursed expenses but rather should
be offset by the benefits of being misclassified, are not helpful
to determining a fact in issue and are contrary to section 2802's
requirements, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court.
As such, the Court should also preclude Oyer from testifying at the
hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, currently
scheduled for Oct. 18, 2024.
According to the complaint, Allstate does not reimburse agents for
their expenses. Allstate stated that in its answer and confirmed
that fact in its corporate testimony.
Yet Allstate submitted a report by Professor Oyer that contradicts
its judicial admission and testimony by opining that the
commissions Allstate paid agents did, from "an economics
perspective," indirectly reimburse agents for their expenses for
purposes of section 2802.
Allstate offers insurance for car, home, rental, motorcycle and
more.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rEdK0A at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Goldstein, Esq.
Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
Mark R. Miller, Esq.
WALLACE MILLER
150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 626-9760
E-mail: mjg@wallacemiller.com
eaw@wallacemiller.com
mrm@wallacemiller.com
- and -
Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
Erin K. Dickinson, Esq.
Benjamin Kaplan, Esq.
James Tilton, Esq.
CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
4532 North Oakland Avenue
Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
Telephone: (414) 210-3868
E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
ekd@cruegerdickinson.com
bak@cruegerdickinson.com
jlt@cruegerdickinson.com
- and -
Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (844) 622-6469
E-mail: gnelson@nflawfirm.com
gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Rittman Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMAN, et al.,
v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al. Case No. 2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' motion to enjoin prosecution of later-filed cases and
granting in part Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The following claims are dismissed with prejudice and without
further leave to amend:
-- Count I is dismissed as to all named Plaintiffs except Carroll,
Wehmeyer, Yarleque, and Davarci.
-- Count II–IV and VI are dismissed as to all named Plaintiffs
except
Carroll.
-- Count V is dismissed.
-- Count IX is dismissed as to all named Plaintiffs except
Wilkins.
-- Count XI–XVI are dismissed.
-- Count XVII is dismissed as to all named Plaintiffs except
Wilkins.
-- Count XIX is dismissed.
-- Count XXVII is dismissed.
The Plaintiffs have made sufficient allegations about Defendants'
conduct to make it plausible that delivery drivers were deprived of
tips from 2016 through 2019.
These allegations about Amazon's nationwide program, if true, would
harm Plaintiffs in various states represented during the relevant
timeframe, including California, Washington, Texas, New York,
Illinois, and Colorado.
The Plaintiffs may therefore proceed with their unjust enrichment
and tortious interference claims under the common law of these six
states.
The Plaintiffs allegedly worked for Defendants as Amazon Flex
delivery drivers. They first filed this action in 2016, alleging
that the Defendants misclassified them as independent contractors
and, as a result, owe them and similarly situated drivers unpaid
wages and expenses.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X5H8iX at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICARE SYSTEMS: Filing of Conditional Cert Due April 30, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE LYON, On behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICARE SYSTEMS,
INC., doing business as AMERICARE SENIOR LIVING, Case No.
6:24-cv-03207-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered a
scheduling order as follows:
1. Discovery will proceed in two phases. The first phase will
include discovery of all issues related to Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification. Phase II discovery will
involve
discovery relating to alleged damages and completion of any
other merits issues.
2. Any motion to join additional parties or amend the pleadings
shall be filed on or before Nov. 15, 2024.
3. All Phase I discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of
Civil
Procedure shall be completed on or before Apr. 18, 2025.
4. Dispositive motions based on Phase I discovery shall be filed
on
or before April 30, 2025.
5. Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a
collective
and/or class action shall be filed on or before April 30,
2025.
6. Defendant's response to plaintiff's motion to certify a class
shall be due 30 days after the motion for class certification
is
filed.
Americare Systems offers complete commercial laundry and kitchen
solutions for a range of industries including restaurants,
hospitality, and senior living.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FIL3eF at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANTONIO LOPEZ-FIGUEROA: Public Employers Loses Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA E. CARBONELL,
ROBERTO A. WHATTS OSORIO, ELBA Y. COLON NERY, BILLY NIEVES
HERNANDEZ, NELIDA ALVAREZ FEBUS, LINDA DUMONT GUZMAN, SANDRA
QUINONES PINTO, YOMARYS ORTIZ GONZALEZ, JANET CRUZ BERRIOS, CARMEN
BERLINGERI PABON, MERAB ORTIZ RIVERA, v. ANTONIO LOPEZ-FIGUEROA,
UNION OF ORGANIZED CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES, JOJANIE MULERO ANDINO, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01236-WGY (D.P.R.), the Hon. Judge William Young
entered ruling as follows.
1. The Employees' Motion For Summary Judgment, is allowed, and
judgment shall enter against the Defendants. The Court
declares
that the practice by the Public Employer of withholding a
$25.00
supplemental health benefit from non-union members violates
non-
union members' non-associational First Amendment rights.
2. Order of Permanent Injunction. The Public Employer, its
officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all
other persons who are in active concert or participation with
them, are prospectively enjoined from withholding the $25.00
supplemental health benefit paid to Union members from
non-union
members eligible to be part of the Union, based solely upon
union membership.
3. The Public Employers' motion for summary judgment is denied.
Judgment shall be enter is accordance with these rulings.
On Aug. 18, 2022, the Employees filed an Amended Complaint, seeking
monetary damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief against
the Union, the Commissioner of the Puerto Rico Police Bureau, and
Public Employer for violation of their First Amendment right to be
free of association with the Union.
On March 23, 2023, the Court dismissed monetary damages claims
against the Public Employer.
On January 19, 2024, the Employees moved for summary judgment
against the Public Employer, but not the Union.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hYm3zW at no extra
charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Sued Over Unfair Charges on Music Streaming Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Kroet, writing for EuroNews, reports that Pan-European
consumer group Euroconsumers, on Sept. 18, is launching a
coordinated class action in Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Portugal
against tech giant Apple for imposing unfair charges on non-Apple
music streaming services though its app store.
The company applied restrictions on app developers preventing them
from using cheaper music subscription services outside of the app,
a European Commission investigation found earlier this year.
Since 2013, iPhone and iPad users paid up to 30% extra for
non-Apple music streaming subscriptions via the App Store --
including Spotify, YouTube Music and SoundCloud. Spotify, for
example, increased its monthly subscription price from EUR9.99 to
EUR12.99 for iOS users to cover Apple's commission fees.
Euroconsumers' class action aims to recover some EUR62 million for
over 500,000 victims in the four countries alone.
Consumers who used Apple's in-app payment system for music
streaming services could be eligible to receive around EUR3 for
each month they paid inflated prices, the organisation said.
"Now that the European Commission has condemned and fined Apple for
this behaviour, it's time for Apple to make things right for
consumers. This class action is about giving power back to people,
making sure Apple is held accountable for the harm caused and
standing up for a fair digital market," said Els Bruggeman, Head of
Policy and Enforcement at Euroconsumers.
The Commission in March issued a EUR1.8 billion penalty for Apple's
anti-competitive practices. The Big Tech company was ordered to
remove the unfair conditions and refrain from this in the future.
The EU executive started probing the company after Swedish music
streaming company Spotify filed a formal complaint in 2019.
Apple said in a statement in response to the fine that it will
appeal, claiming that it helped "markets thrive." [GN]
APPLIED DIGITAL: Court Dismisses McConnell Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Applied Digital Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 30, 2024, that on June 5, 2024, the
court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss a
February 27, 2024 amended complaint without prejudice. The order
dismissed all claims against all defendants, including the company.
On June 5, 2024, the court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and dismissing all
claims against all defendants, including the Company. As of the
date of this filing, the plaintiff has not sought leave to file an
amended complaint or filed an appeal of the order dismissing the
action.
In August 2023, the company and several of its executives were
named as defendants in a class action lawsuit that was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas captioned
"McConnell v. Applied Digital Corporation et al.," Case No.
3:23-cv-1805. Lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been named in
the case and have until July 22, 2024 to file an amended
complaint.
In November 2023, a putative securities complaint (No.
A-23-881629-C), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada against certain members of the Board and two of
its executive officers, asserting breaches of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment from April 2022 through the present. The
complaint also alleged that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the complaint
alleged that the company overstated the profitability of the
Datacenter Hosting Business and its ability to successfully
transition into a low-cost cloud services provider and that the
Board was not "independent" within the meaning of Nasdaq listing
rules.
Applied Digital Corporation is a developer and operator of digital
infrastructures based in Texas.
ASHLYNN MARKETING: Court Narrows Claims in J.J. FAC
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.J. and C.D., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ASHLYNN
MARKETING GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint (FAC).
The Plaintiffs' Counts One (UCL) and Three (FAL) are dismissed
without prejudice. The Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
Counts Two (CLRA) and Six (Fraud) is denied. The Plaintiffs' Counts
Four (Implied Warranty) and Five (unjust enrichment) are dismissed
without leave to amend.
The Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike the
nationwide class allegations are denied.
Accordingly, the Court finds that both Plaintiffs' UCL, CLRA, FAL,
and fraudulent omission claims are not time barred. To the extent
that the Plaintiffs conceded that the discovery doctrine does not
apply to implied warranty and unjust enrichment claims, these
causes of action are time barred.
The Court thus grants Defendant's motion to dismiss these two
claims and denies Defendant's motion to dismiss as to all other
claims.
The Plaintiffs bring a putative "class action against Defendant
Ashlynn Marketing Group, Inc. for false, misleading, deceptive, and
negligent sales practices regarding its kratom powder, capsule, and
liquid extract products."
The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action on behalf of the
following three classes:
Class:
"All persons nationwide who, within the applicable statute of
limitations period, up to and including the date of final
judgement in this action, purchased Krave Botanicals kratom
product";
Online Class:
"All persons nationwide who, within the applicable statute of
limitations period, up to and including the date of final
judgment
in this action, purchased Krave Botanicals kratom products from
"www.kravekratom.com";
California Class:
"All Class members in California who, within the applicable
statute of limitations period, up to and including the date of
final judgment in this action, purchased Krave Botanicals
kratom
products (the “
Ashlynn Marketing specializes in the marketing and distribution of
tobacco products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yH6Mdc at no extra
charge.[CC]
AT&T INC: Wallace Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Private Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas-based AT&T continues to bear the consequences of its massive
April 2024 data breach with a second-class action lawsuit that was
filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas Friday, September 13.
The plaintiff, Cindy Wallace of Illinois, has been an AT&T wireless
customer for 20 years, according to the filing. The lawsuit says
Wallace brought the suit against the telecommunications giant "for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard" customers' private
information, including phone call and text message records.
AT&T did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The
Dallas Morning News.
AT&T's investigation into the breach revealed that "records of
calls and texts of nearly all of AT&T's cellular customers" who
were active between May and Oct. 2022 were compromised earlier this
year. Data from Jan. 2, 2023 was also compromised for a small
number of customers. In total, more than 100 million wireless
customers were affected by the breach.
The compromised data identifies the phone numbers that a customer
interacted with during the affected six-month period, according to
AT&T. For a small group, it also includes location data for the
cell towers used for those interactions. It does not contain the
content of any of the calls or texts nor does it have Social
Security numbers, birthdays or other personally identifiable
information. The data also lacks customer names but the company
says it is easy to identify names with easy-to-use online tools.
The lawsuit filed Friday, September 13, said AT&T failed to
implement adequate cybersecurity measures to protect customer
information.
"[AT&T] breached their duties and disregarded the rights of
[customers] by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to implement proper and reasonable measures to safeguard
individuals' (whose information they needed to protect) Private
Information," the lawsuit says.
The suit follows another class-action lawsuit filed in July that
shares some of the same contentions. Both suits allege that AT&T
failed to safeguard customer data. The July lawsuit adds that the
telecommunications company was not transparent about the severity
of the breach and that they earned "unjust enrichment" from
customers after failing to protect their information.
AT&T also made news after they agreed to pay a $13 million
settlement with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission relating
to a 2023 data breach that exposed the personal information of
nearly 9 million AT&T customers, Bloomberg reported.
The company also announced that it has reached a tentative
agreement with the Communication Workers of America to end a work
stoppage that included more the 20,000 workers across the country.
[GN]
AUTODESK INC: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------
Autodesk, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 30, 2024, that on April 24, 2024, plaintiff
Michael Barkasi filed a purported federal securities class action
complaint in the Northern District of California against the
company, its Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Anagnost and former
Chief Financial Officer, Deborah L. Clifford.
The complaint, which was filed shortly after the company's
announcement of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors'
internal investigation regarding the company's free cash flow and
non-GAAP operating margin practices, generally alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The action purports to be brought on behalf of those who purchased
or otherwise acquired the company's publicly traded securities
between June 1, 2023 and April 16, 2024, and seeks unspecified
damages and other relief. On July 10, 2024, the court appointed a
lead plaintiff in the action, and an amended complaint was due last
September 16, 2024.
Autodesk is a technology/software company based out of San
Francisco, California.
AVIS RENT A CAR: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Rivera Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JADA RIVERA on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC, and AVIS BUDGET GROUP,
INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-09339 (D.N.J., Sept. 20, 2024) is a class
action against Avis for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Avis customers'
full names, credit card numbers and expiration dates, driver's
license information, dates of birth, and phone numbers from
hackers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Class Members 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.
On Sept. 5, 2024, Avis filed official notice of a hacking incident
with the Offices of the Attorney General in both Maine and
California.
On Sept. 4, 2024, Avis also sent out data breach letters to
individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the
hacking incident.
According to Avis's report to the Office of the Attorney General in
Maine, approximately 299,006 individuals have been affected by the
Data Breach.
Avis, headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, is a rental car
service company that serves hundreds of thousands of customers
nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
- and -
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,
A PROFESSIONAL CORP
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: gharoutunian@justice4you.com
BEVERLYMARK INC: Conditional Status of Collective Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN LOPEZ, SONIA LOPEZ,
SANDRA CLAROS, JOSE URBINA, WALTER MEJIA, JUANA FLORES, SONIA
ZARAT, VERONICA ZAMORA, HUGO GARCIA, MARYURI GRANADOS, FLOR OCHOA,
and KATHERINE URBINA, on behalf of themselves and others similar
situated, v. ARTHUR J. ROBBINS, LISA ROBBINS, MICHAEL BARRISH and
BEVERLYMARK INC. d/b/a ACU PLUS, ABC Corp. d/b/a/ ACU PLUS, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00807-LDH-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James Wicks
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective
and for court facilitation of notice.
In accordance with this Order:
(i) Defendants are directed to provide the contact information
for
potential opt-ins to Plaintiffs via the excel spreadsheet
on
or before Sept. 27, 2024; and
(ii) the parties are directed to meet and confer, and, on or
before
Sept. 27, 2024, file a proposed Notice and Consent to Join
Form for the Court's consideration on or before Oct.14,
2024.
Therefore, the potential members’ titles of machine operator or
assistant to the machine operator or screen cleaner would be
sufficient here in light of the lack of payment they too
experienced, similar to the named Plaintiffs. The Court thus finds
that Plaintiffs have adduced sufficient evidence for conditional
certification of the FLSA collective.
Accordingly, having found that Plaintiffs met their initial burden
in demonstrating that they are similarly situated to other
employees, the Court exercises its discretion in authorizing
Plaintiffs to issue the notice for opt-in plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated current and former and current employees of
Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR").
The Plaintiffs commenced the instant action on Feb. 2, 2023 seeking
to recover stolen wages under the FLSA and N.Y. Labor Law, and
civil damages for fraudulent filing of income tax returns under 26
U.S.C Code section 7434.
The Defendants answered the Complaint on June 26, 2023. On Aug. 7,
2023, the Court held the Initial Conference and issued its FLSA
Order.
The Plaintiffs are or were employees of ACU Plus on or after Feb.
2, 2017.
ACU Plus is a large custom screen printing and embroidery
business.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vbx8GP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
Hempstead, NY 11550
The Defendants are represented by:
Mitchell S. Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL S. SEGAL, P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
BIG FISH: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Campos Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN CAMPOS and JANET
GARVEY, v. BIG FISH GAMES INC., a Washington corporation, et al.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01806-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo
Martinez entered an order granting the parties' stipulated motion
to modify case schedule.
The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification, currently set for Oct. 16, 2024, is now Nov. 13,
2024; Defendants' opposition to motion to certify Class is now due
Dec. 18, 2024; Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion to certify
class is now due Jan. 8, 2025.
Big Fish is a casual game company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DOQnl2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carl Marquardt, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CARL J. MARQUARDT, PLLC
1126 34th Avenue, Suite 311
Seattle, WA 98122
E-mail: carl@cjmllc.com
- and -
Andrew Ryan, Esq.
THE RYAN LAW GROUP
317 Rosecrans Ave.
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
E-mail: andrew.ryan@thryanlawgroup.com
BK21 TEA: Faces Zhu Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
YAFEI ZHU and LIHENG XU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BK21 TEA HOUSE INC. d/b/a PRINCE
DESSERT & TEA ROOM, BOWERY TEA HOUSE INC. d/b/a PRINCE TEA HOUSE,
CHEUNG MAN LEE, YI CHUN CHEN, and HANG ZIONG ZHANG,, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07164 (S.D.N.Y., September 20, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay timely wages, illegal retention of
tips, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide wage
statements.
Plaintiff Zhu was employed by the Defendants as a waitress at
Bowery Tea House restaurant from on or about February 6, 2024,
until on or about March 27, 2024.
Plaintiff Xu was employed by the Defendants as a waiter at 21st Ave
Tea House restaurant from in or about September 2019 until in or
about March 2020.
BK21 Tea House Inc., doing business as Prince Dessert & Tea Room,
is an owner and operator of a chain of bakery and tea houses
located at 8510 21st Ave., Brooklyn, New York.
Bowery Tea House Inc., doing business as Prince Tea House, is an
owner and operator of a chain of bakery and tea houses located at
134 Bowery St., New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
BLUE DIAMOND: White Files Mislabeling Suit Over Almond Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Defendant, Case No.
525003/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., September 16, 2024) arises from
the Defendant's alleged violation of the General Business Law due
to its false advertising, unfair acts, and deceptive practices.
To appeal to consumers, including Plaintiff, seeking authentically
smoked foods, which get their taste from the burning hardwoods,
and/or foods which get their taste from highlighted ingredients
and/or natural production processes, without additives, Blue
Diamond Growers manufactures, labels, markets, packages,
distributes, and/or sells, (1) individual bags of almonds, (2)
"almonds" in all capital letters and orange font, (3) within a
three-dimensional polygon, (4) its edges in darkening shades of
orange, (5) until becoming red at its vertices, (6) evocative of
the combustion processes associated with fire, (7) above the word,
"Smokehouse," emblazoned across a streaking red ribbon, with
glowing orange borders, (8) such that the food's name is read
and/or understood as "Smokehouse Almonds," (9) surrounded by
almonds appearing to have a light salt coating, (10) under the Blue
Diamond brand.
Allegedly, the product is misbranded and misleads consumers, who
increasingly value foods made through traditional production
methods, like smoking over hardwoods, even though the almonds are
not subject to any smoking process. The product is misbranded and
misleads consumers, because promoting its smoked taste as from a
"Smokehouse," fails to reveal facts material in light of such
representations, because in place of true wood smoke, it has
substituted "Natural Hickory Smoke Flavor," a form of liquid smoke,
or pyroligneous acid, to provide its smoked taste, says the suit.
Blue Diamond Growers is an agricultural cooperative and marketing
organization that specializes in California almonds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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
BMO BANK: Faces Jones Suit Over Deposited Item Return Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Deidre L. Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BMO Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08570 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 18, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, BMO unfairly targeted its customers
with financial penalties for faulty checks the customers had no
hand in issuing by charging deposited item return fees. By charging
its customers significant fees in situations where the customer did
nothing wrong and could not have avoided the fee through reasonable
diligence, BMO acted in a manner that is unfair, oppressive, and
against public policy, says the suit.
Plaintiff Jones opened a BMO Standard Checking account in Chicago,
Illinois. On December 3, 2021, she attempted to deposit a check
into her BMO account. That day, to her surprise and by no fault of
her own, the check she deposited was returned unpaid. BMO charged
her a Deposited Item Return Fee of $12. The Deposited Item Return
Fee was unlawfully deducted from the balance of her account, the
Plaintiff asserts.
BMO Bank, N.A. is a national bank headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (772) 783-8436
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: lconsidine@sirillp.com
- and -
Leslie Pescia, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
101 North Seventh Street, #827
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (772) 783-8436
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: lpescia@sirillp.com
BOTANIC TONICS: Reaches Settlement Deal in Botanic Tonics Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Botanic Tonics, maker of feel free, announced
on September 18, that it has reached a settlement agreement in the
class action lawsuit "In re Botanic Tonics Litigation" (Case No.
3:23-cv-01460-VC, N.D. Cal.). The settlement, which is subject to
court approval, resolves claims related to the marketing and
labeling of Botanic Tonics' feel free product.
Botanic Tonics acknowledges that its early marketing practices fell
short of the high standards of transparency and consumer education
that the company now champions. While these practices did not
violate any laws, the company recognized the concerns raised by
consumers and took significant steps to address them. The
settlement includes both monetary relief for eligible class members
and reinforces Botanic Tonics' unwavering commitment to enhanced
product labeling and consumer education.
Since its founding in 2020, Botanic Tonics has been dedicated to
serving its customers and providing an exceptional product. When
consumers voiced concerns in 2022 about how the product was being
marketed in some instances and a perceived lack of consumer
awareness about the product's contents, the company listened
intently and took decisive action. For over two years, Botanic
Tonics has been focused on enhancing transparency, safety, and
consumer education, setting new standards for the industry.
"This settlement marks a significant milestone for Botanic Tonics,"
said Cameron Korehbandi, CEO. "We've always been committed to being
the best company we can be for our customers. By actively listening
to consumer feedback and continuously refining our practices, we
aim to set the gold standard for the entire premium plant-based
supplement industry, particularly for products containing kava and
kratom."
Botanic Tonics has implemented and continually enhanced the
following measures:
-- Enhanced product labeling with clear warnings about potential
effects and visible serving-size indicators
-- Raised the minimum purchase age for all products to 21+
-- Invested in clinical research to better understand the effects
of kava and kratom
-- Championed common-sense industry regulations for both kava and
kratom
-- Expanded consumer education resources on the company website
about kava and kratom
-- All products manufactured in an FDA-registered, cGMP-certified
facility with rigorous quality control and safety testing
protocols
"We believe in the transformative potential of premium plant-based
supplements like kava and kratom when used responsibly," Korehbandi
added. "Our mission is to ensure every consumer has access to
clear, comprehensive information about our products, empowering
them to make informed choices."
Botanic Tonics' feel free CLASSIC stands out as the only
ready-to-consume tonic using high-quality kava and natural whole
leaf kratom in its purest form. The company takes pride in sourcing
kava from the pristine islands of Vanuatu, where this revered plant
is native and has been used in traditional practices for centuries.
This commitment to authenticity and quality sets Botanic Tonics
apart in the market.
The company remains dedicated to leading the industry in research,
education, and collaboration with regulators to ensure the safest
possible market for kava and kratom supplements. This proactive
approach reflects Botanic Tonics' commitment to excellence and
consumers.
"We believe that an informed consumer is an empowered consumer,"
Korehbandi stated. "By fostering a deeper understanding of kava,
kratom, and other botanicals, we're not just selling products --
we're cultivating a community of knowledgeable, responsible users."
As the botanical supplement industry continues to evolve, Botanic
Tonics is committed to staying ahead of the curve in research,
quality control, and regulatory compliance. The company's
dedication to growth and excellence ensures that it will continue
to adapt and improve, setting new benchmarks for consumer safety
and product efficacy.
Recognizing the rapidly evolving landscape of the botanical
supplement industry, particularly concerning kava and kratom,
Botanic Tonics is dedicated to staying at the forefront of
research, quality control, and regulatory compliance. As new
information emerges and industry standards develop, the company is
committed to adapting its practices to ensure the highest levels of
consumer safety and product efficacy.
Disclaimer: Consume responsibly. Adults 21 years of age and older
only.
To learn more, visit our consumer education page.
About Botanic Tonics
Botanic Tonics is a premium plant-based supplement company
headquartered in Broken Arrow, OK. Established in 2020, we produce
tonics under our feel free brand. Our signature product, feel free
CLASSIC, is the only ready-to-consume kava and whole leaf kratom
tonic of its kind on the market, crafted with ancient functional
plants to provide mood lift, energy, and focus. Learn more at
https://botanictonics.com
Media Contact
Botanic Tonics
media@botanictonics.com [GN]
BROTHERS OF CHRISTIAN: Face Sexual Assault Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barrons reports that an order of Catholic monks that once ran up to
80 schools in Canada's Quebec province was hit Friday, September
20, with accusations of sexual assaults over decades.
In a class action, more than 87 victims have come forward with
allegations against the Brothers of Christian Instruction that date
as far back as 1940. Several of the monks are now deceased.
In court documents, the accusers detail assaults at more than 20
schools run by the Brothers across the province of Quebec.
Most occurred between the 1950s and 1970s, a lawyer representing
the plaintiffs told AFP.
"The plaintiffs allege in particular that the congregation was
aware of the Brothers' sexual assaults on children, but that it
preferred to move and protect the attackers rather than help the
victims," they said in the court filings.
The lead plaintiff, a man identified only by his initials M.J.,
accused one of the monks, Brother Charles, of twice sexually
assaulting him starting when he was 13 years old at
Sainte-Bernadette-Soubirous school in Montreal between 1960 and
1961.
He said Brother Charles, who was in charge of the student body,
approached him from behind in class, and tried to put his hand down
the boy's pants.
On another occasion, the monk allegedly grabbed the boy by his
sweater during a singing practice and tried to force him to touch
his genitals.
The lawsuit comes on the heels of another class action that
included an accusation that an influential Canadian cardinal
sexually assaulted a teenage girl in the late 1980s.
Cardinal Gerald Lacroix, the 66-year-old archbishop of Quebec and a
member of the pope's so-called C9 advisory council of nine
cardinals, has denied the accusation. [GN]
BUFFALO, NY: Class Cert Hearing in Black Suit Set for Oct. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Black Love Resists, et
al., v. City of Buffalo, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00719 (W.D.N.Y.,
Filed June 28, 2018), the Hon. Judge Christina Clair Reiss entered
an order setting hearing for motion to certify class on Oct. 23,
2024, at 10:00 AM in Buffalo Courtroom, 9th Floor East, 2 Niagara
Square, Buffalo, New York.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
CARLE FOUNDATION: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Waggoner Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH WAGGONER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CARLE FOUNDATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02217-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., September 20, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco
surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher
premiums for their health insurance. The Defendant does not provide
the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did,
it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability
of such an alternative in all its plan communications.
Consequently, the Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's
anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on
employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal
requirements for a bona fide wellness program. As a result of the
imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge,
the Defendant enriched itself at the expense of the plan, resulting
in it receiving a windfall, says the suit.
The Carle Foundation is a not-for-profit organization that owns and
operates the Carle Foundation Hospital in Urbana, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle D.McLean, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Court Extends Time to File Sur-reply
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Susan Hightower entered an order granting Defendants' opposed
motion for extension of time to seek leave to file surreply.
The Defendants have until Oct. 4, 2024 to file a sur-reply limited
to 20 pages to Plaintiffs' reply in further support of motion for
class certification.
The Court further orders the parties to file redacted versions of
all sealed documents filed in the record since March 13, 2024.
Because the Plaintiffs' reply brief presented new evidence, the
Court must allow the Defendants to respond.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in a fraudulent
scheme to promote their experimental Alzheimer's drug, simufilam,
by concealing facts that undermined the integrity of Cassava's
research.
The Plaintiffs, who purchased Cassava securities between Sept. 14,
2020 and Oct. 12, 2023 allege that they suffered damages as a
result of the Defendants' federal securities law violations, false
and misleading statements, and material omissions.
The Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), and Rule 10b-5,
17 C.F.R. section240.10b-5.
Cassava Sciences is an American pharmaceutical company based in
Austin, Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7SEyPy at no extra
charge.[CC]
CAT ROCK: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Saunders Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CAT ROCK CAURD LLC d/b/a LEAFOLOGY CANNABIS COMPANY,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07121 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2024) sues the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its Website, www.leafologycannabiscompany.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. 16,
2024, as a result of a glowing recommendation by a close friend who
had been aware of Plaintiff's condition, and the potential benefits
and uses of marijuana and related products. Therefore, the
following day, Plaintiff accessed the Defendant's Website for the
first time with a sighted relative and was very impressed with the
companies thoroughness of each product sold online, detailing each
of its unique characteristics.
However, when attempting to discover crucial medical information
about this product and others with similar properties from the
Website including any potential contraindications, the Plaintiff
was unable to discern any further information other than what was
contained within the Product Tile, as a result of the numerous
access barriers, including: "Redundant Alternative Text," "Linked
Images Missing Alternative Text," and "Missing Form Labels," the
suit claims.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the 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. Saunders is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using his computer.
Leafology is a legal licensed cannabis dispensary.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY: Settlement Class Gets Conditional Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Haley Gustavson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:20-cv-01496-DLF
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Dabney Friedrich entered an order
conditionally certifying the following Settlement Class:
"All students enrolled in the Spring 2020 Semester who did not
withdraw by March 18, 2020, for whom any amount of tuition
and/or fees was paid to Catholic from any source other than a
scholarship, grant or tuition remission from Catholic, and whose
tuition and/or fees have not been fully refunded by Catholic."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) any students who
received full scholarships, grants or tuition remission from
Catholic and thus did not pay any tuition or fees for the Spring
2020 Semester; (ii) the University and its officers, trustees
and
their family members; (iii) Class Counsel; (iv) the Judge
presiding over the Action; and (v) all persons who properly
execute and file a timely opt-out request to be excluded from
the
Settlement Class.
Catholic University of America is a private Catholic research
university in Washington, D.C.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5EXRHC at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHADWICK DOTSON: Class Discovery in Puryear Suit Due Nov. 25
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leslie Puryear, et al., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Chadwick
Dotson, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00479-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon.
Judge Robert Payne entered an order that:
(1) Class discovery shall be completed by Nov. 25, 2024;
(2) By Jan. 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs shall file their motion for
class certification; and
(3) By Jan. 24, 2025, the Defendants shall file their response;
and
(4) By Jan. 31, 2025, the Plaintiffs shall file their reply.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BFfzOG at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHAMA VALLEY: Mercure Sues School District Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN MERCURE, NICOLE MERCURE, JOSE R. TORREZ, JUAN D. TORREZ,
BERNADETTE ULIBARRI, and ADAM VALENCIA, on behalf of themselves and
all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOARD OF
EDUCATION OF THE CHAMA VALLEY INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00925 (D.N.M., Sept. 17, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiffs at one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay, for
hours in excess of 40 violated the FLSA. As a direct and proximate
result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in
the form of lost wages and lost use of such wages.
The Plaintiffs are adult residents of New Mexico and worked as
full-time employees in various classified positions with Chama
Valley Independent School District. They are hourly, non-exempt
employees under the FLSA.
Chama Valley Independent School District oversees the operation of
public schools in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shane C. Youtz, Esq.
Stephen Curtice, Esq.
James A. Montalbano, Esq.
Grace Rhodehouse Barberena, Esq.
YOUTZ AND VALDEZ, P.C.
900 Gold Ave. SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 244-1200
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Info, Hill Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARIELLE HILL, individually & on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY (d/b/a
ATRIUM HEALTH), Case No. 3:24-cv-00847-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C., Sept. 19,
2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and
former Atrium patients' personally identifiable information and
protected health information from cybercriminals.
On Sept. 13, 2024, Atrium announced that its patients' Private
Information stored on its systems had been compromised by a
phishing attack on several employee email accounts.
Atrium allegedly indicated that the information impacted by the
Data Breach included "an individual's first and/or last name;
middle initial; street address, email address and/or phone
number(s); Social Security number; date of birth; medical record
number; certain government or employer identifiers; driver's
license or state-issued identification number; bank or financial
account numbers or information, including routing numbers,
financial institution name, or expiration date;
treatment/diagnosis, provider name, prescription, health insurance
or treatment cost information; patient identification number;
health insurance account or policy number(s); incidental health
references; billing identification numbers; access credentials;
and/or digital signatures."
Atrium has not reported the Data Breach to the Department of Health
and Human Services Office for Civil Rights, or any of the state
agencies as of the filing of this complaint, the lawsuit says.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to
implement and to follow basic security procedures, the Plaintiff's
and Class Members' PII and PHI is now in the hands of
cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a
significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud,
identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits,
intrusion of their health privacy and similar forms of criminal
mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives, the
lawsuit asserts.
Plaintiff Darielle Hill is, and was an individual citizen residing
in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, and has been a patient of Atrium
for several years.
Atrium is a healthcare organization and hospital network offering a
wide range of clinical services to patients across multiple
states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and -
David S. Almeida, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Kirksey Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUANITA KIRKSEY, individually & 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-00846 (W.D.N.C.,
Sept. 18, 2024) is a class action lawsuit against Atrium for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated current and former Atrium patients' personally
identifiable information and protected health information,
including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, Driver's
licenses, health and health insurance information, and financial
data from cybercriminals.
On September 13, 2024, Atrium announced that its patients' private
information stored on its systems had been compromised by a
phishing attack on several employee email accounts. Atrium has not
reported the data breach to the Department of Health and Human
Services Office for Civil Rights or any of the state agencies as of
the filing of this complaint. Thus, despite discovering the data
breach in April 2023, Atrium still has not disclosed the full scope
of the data breach or the information impacted, says the suit.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to
implement and to follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PII and PHI is now in the hands of cybercriminals,
the suit alleges.
The Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority is a healthcare
organization and hospital network offering a wide range of clinical
services to patients across multiple states in the U.S.[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
E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
CHARTER COM: Morris Asks Court to Overrule Jurisdiction Objections
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE MORRIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (DE), INC. Case No. 3:23-cv-01741-K (N.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to overrule
Defendant's personal jurisdiction objections and to compel Charter
to provide substantive responses to Plaintiff's First Set of
Discovery Requests and grant Plaintiff all legal or equitable
relief this Court deems proper.
The Plaintiff asserts two claims under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), for illegal calls to consumers' telephones
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent two Classes:
National Telemarketing Class:
"All persons within the United States who (a) received a
telephone
call on their landline or cellular telephone; (b) made by or on
behalf of the Defendant; (c) in which an artificial or
prerecorded
voice was played; (d) at any time in the period that begins
four
years before the filing of the complaint in this action to the
date that class notice is disseminated (the "Class Period")."
National DNC Class:
"All persons in the United States (a) whose numbers are listed
on
the National Do Not Call Registry and (b) who received two or
more
telemarketing calls from Defendant or its agents to their
telephone number within any 12-month period throughout the
Class
Period."
The Plaintiff timely served Plaintiff's First Set of Discovery
Requests on Jan. 23, 2024.
Charter Communications operates as a cable telecommunications
company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uy5yB1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kasia Brozynski, Esq.
Bart Dalton, Esq.
BROZYNSKI & DALTON PC
5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300
Plano, TX 75024
Telephone: (972) 371-0679
Facsimile: (972) 637-9185
E-mail: kasia@bdlegalgroup.com
bart@bdlegalgroup.com
- and -
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
Courtney R. Brown, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
One Allied Drive, Suite 1400
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: rpulliam@cpblaw.com
cbrown@cbplaw.com
CHRIS REYKDAL: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as N.D. et al., on behalf of
a class of those similarly situated, v. CHRIS REYKDAL, in his
capacity as the SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and OFFICE OF
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, a Washington State
agency, Case No. 2:22-cv-01621-LK-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying the proposed settlement class comprised of:
"All students who were exited from special education
services
due to age before their 22nd birthday between Nov. 11, 2020
and
the present,"
(2) appointing as class counsel the law firms of Susman Godfrey
LLP
and Cedar Law PLLC,
(3) appointing N.D. and E.A., by and through their respective
guardians, as class representatives,
(4) granting preliminary approval of the settlement,
(5) approving the proposed notice plan, and
(6) scheduling any final fairness hearing and related deadlines.
Given the expanded notice period, the Plaintiffs request a final
fairness hearing be scheduled 90 days from the issuance any
preliminary approval.
The proposed class is the result of extended negotiations between
the parties about which students may be eligible, including the
Court's ruling regarding the provisional class. The class
definition also accounts for the IDEA's two-year statute of
limitations.
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in November of
2022, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the
Defendants, alleging that they violated the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), by failing to ensure school
districts in Washington provide FAPE to "all children with
disabilities … between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gam8Fv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian B. Crosby, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
401 Union Street, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 516-3880
Facsimile: (206) 516-3883
E-mail: icrosby@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Lara Hruska, Esq.
Alex Hagel, Esq.
Kaitlin Leifur-Masterson, Esq.
CEDAR LAW PLLC
113 Cherry Street, PMB 96563
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 607-8277
Facsimile: (206) 237-9101
E-mail: lara@cedarlawpllc.com
alex@cedarlawpllc.com
kaitlin@cedarlawpllc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian Rowe, Esq.
S. Todd Sipe, Esq.
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
Telephone: (206) 464-7744
E-mail: Brian.Rowe@atg.wa.gov
Todd.Sipe@atg.wa.gov
COMMUNITY CARE: Filing of Responses Due Oct. 9
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEH, et al v. Community
Care Companions Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01417 (W.D.N.Y.,
Filed Oct. 22, 2019), the Hon. Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. entered
an order as follows:
-- Motion to strike filed by Oretha Beh, Kimberly Balkum and
motion to Strike Declaration Testimony Submitted in Support of
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Maintain a Collective Action
filed
by Community Care Companions Inc, Alexander J. Caro, Mark
Gatien:
Responses due is Oct. 9, 2024.
Replies due is Oct. 16, 2024.
-- Motion hearing date and deadline to file Rule 12, 23, and 56
motions to remain the same.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Founded in 1986, Community Care Companions, Inc. is a home care and
nurse staffing agency specializing in hourly and live-in care.[CC]
CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Moore Due Oct. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MOORE, et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CONSOL
PENNSYLVANIA COAL COMPANY LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01991-WSS (W.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge William Stickman IV entered an order modifying
the case management order from the current deadlines to the
deadlines below:
-- Fact discovery: June 6, 2025.
-- Expert discovery: Sept. 4, 2025.
-- All discovery: Sept. 4, 2025.
-- Motion for class certification: Oct. 3, 2025.
-- Brief in opposition to motion for class certification: Nov. 3,
2025.
-- Reply in support of motion for class certification: Nov. 17,
2025.
Consol Pennsylvania explores and produces natural oil and gas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LJTPnN at no extra
charge.[CC]
CONTINENT 8: Underpays Data Center Technicians, Zabik Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TANNER ZABIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENT 8 TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-12473-DPH-DRG (E.D. Mich., September 20, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay for all hours
worked, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a data center
technician in Southfield, Michigan from June 2022 through August
2024.
Continent 8 Technologies is a data storage and hosting service
company in Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Kapitan, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
Email: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com
matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
CONVERSE INC: Faces Price Class Action Suit Over TikTok Software
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL PRICE, an individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONVERSE, INC., a Massachusetts company, and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-08091 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 20,
2024) alleges that the Defendant has installed on its Website,
https://www.converse.com, software created by TikTok in order to
identify website visitors (the "TikTok Software").
According to the complaint, the TikTok Software acts via a process
known as "fingerprinting." Put simply, the TikTok Software collects
as much data as it can about an otherwise anonymous visitor to the
Website and matches it with existing data TikTok has acquired and
accumulated about hundreds of millions of Americans. The TikTok
Software gathers device and browser information, geographic
information, referral tracking, and url tracking by running code or
"scripts" on the Website to send user details to TikTok. The TikTok
Software begins to collect information the moment a user lands on
the Website. Thus, even though the Website has a "cookie banner"
the information has already been sent to TikTok regarding the
user's visit. The Converse website instantly sends communications
to TikTok when a user lands, and every time a user clicks on a
page, the lawsuit says.
Converse is a Massachusetts company that owns, operates, and/or
controls www.converse.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Narain Kumar, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 927-9270
E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com
nkumar@taulersmith.com
CREDIT BUREAU: Class Certification Bid Filing Due April 18, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD D. MYERS,
Bankruptcy trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Donna Jean
Lunsford, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; and DONNA J. HAMILTON, v. CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES, INC.,
and C. J. TIGHE, Case No. 8:20-cv-00141-JFB (D. Neb.), the Hon.
Judge Kate Rahel entered an order that the provisions of the
Court's previous final progression order
remain in effect, and in addition to those provisions, case
progression shall be amended as follows:
1) The trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this
time
but will be set after the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs'
motion
for class certification. Accordingly, the parties are to
contact
the assigned Magistrate Judge to schedule a status conference
to
discuss the pretrial and trial setting within 10 days of the
Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
2) The deadline for completing remaining discovery is Feb. 21,
2025.
3) The deadline to file motions for class certification is April
18, 2025.
4) The deadline for filing motions for summary judgment is May
19,
2025.
5) The parties shall comply with all other stipulations and
agreements recited in their Rule 26(f) planning report that
are
not inconsistent with this order.
6) All requests for changes of deadlines or settings established
herein shall be directed to the appointed special master or
assigned magistrate judge. Such requests will not be
considered
absent a showing of due diligence in the timely progression
of
this case and the recent development of circumstances,
unanticipated prior to the filing of the motion, which
require
that additional time be allowed.
Credit Bureau Services is a full-service accounts receivable
management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=36iLYX at no extra
charge.[CC]
CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Faces Unfair Competition Suit in TX 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 August 5, 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 and violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law.
The complainants seek certification of a nationwide class, as well
as sub-classes of certain California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
citizens, who had a flight delayed or canceled during a specified
period of time and are seeking unspecified monetary damages,
certain injunctive relief, 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.
DANOS SEASONING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DANOS SEASONING LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07043 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2024) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website
https://danosseasoning.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
August 22, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Preem-O Small 2 Bottle
Combo from Defendant and to view the information on the website, he
encountered multiple access barriers that denied him 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. He was unable to locate pricing and was
not able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken links,
pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's website, which prevented him from doing so, says the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Danos Seasoning LLC operates the website that offers herbs, spices,
seasoning accessories & merchandise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
DAVE'S KILLER: Loses Bid to Dismiss Swartz Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SWARTZ, v. DAVE'S
KILLER BREAD, INC. AND FLOWERS FOODS, INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-10053-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers entered an order:
-- granting certification under Rule 23(b)(3) for a class defined
as:
"All persons in the State of California who purchased the
Products
between Dec. 29, 2017 and Sept. 5, 2023.
-- denying Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing;
-- denying Defendants' motion to strike the declaration of Colin
Weir; and
-- denying as moot proposed intervenors' motion to intervene.
This terminates docket numbers 72, 73, 77, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 100,
103, 107, 115, and 124.
The Court finds that plaintiff's expert's model complies with
Comcast for the same reasons articulated in Part III.A. To the
extent there are any flaws in the methodology, they go to weight,
and not admissibility, and do not support striking the
declaration.
The Plaintiff alleges the defendants violated regulations of the
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), and therefore California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), by including unlawful labels on
their bread products.
Dave's Killer bakes and markets bread and other bakery products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oarCeX at no extra
charge.[CC]
DEERE & COMPANY: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Bunch Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bunch v. Deere & Company,
Case No. 4:24-cv-04155-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan
E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Deere & Company manufactures agricultural machinery, heavy
equipment, forestry machinery, diesel engines, drivetrains used in
heavy equipment and lawn care equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wrPuxL at no extra
charge.[CC]
DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended August 3, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2024, that on
February 16, 2024, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719
Pension Trust Fund filed a purported class action complaint against
the company and certain of its executive officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:24-cv-00196-NR-KT), purportedly on behalf
of all purchasers of its common shares between May 25, 2022 and
August 21, 2023.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misrepresentations
and omissions about its business and financial condition, including
the company's inventory, margins, and business prospects. The
complaint seeks relief including unspecified damages and an award
of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
On March 14, 2024, the court entered an order providing that
defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint
was deferred until the court ruled on any motion by a purported
class member to serve as lead plaintiff, and that the parties then
submit a proposed schedule for filing an amended and/or
consolidated complaint or designating the operative complaint and
the timing of defendants’ response to the same.
On April 22, 2024, three purported members of the putative class
moved the court for appointment as lead plaintiff pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. One of these
motions was withdrawn on April 23, 2024.
On June 11, 2024, the two remaining lead plaintiff movants filed a
stipulation requesting that they both be appointed as lead
plaintiff and on July 30, 2024, the court entered an order granting
the stipulation and appointing the State of Rhode Island Office of
the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement
System of the State of Rhode Island, and Western Pennsylvania
Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund as lead plaintiffs.
On August 12, 2024, the court entered an order granting the
parties' proposed scheduling stipulation, which provides that lead
plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint by October 15, 2024,
and defendants shall move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond
to the consolidated complaint by December 16, 2024.
DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries) is an
omni-channel sporting goods retailer of sports equipment, apparel,
footwear and accessories under the brands "Golf Galaxy," "Public
Lands," "Going Going Gone!," "DICK'S House of Sport, and
"GameChanger."
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Domino's Pizza, Inc. ("Domino's" or the "Company")
(NYSE:DPZ) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
and docketed under 24-cv-12477, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Domino's securities between December 7, 2023 and
July 17, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Domino's securities during the Class Period, you have until
November 19, 2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff
for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, 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.
Domino's, through its subsidiaries, operates as a global pizza
company in three segments: U.S. Stores, International Franchise,
and Supply Chain. Domino's offers pizzas and other food products
under the Domino's brand name through Company-owned and franchised
stores. The Company's largest "master franchisee"-i.e., a
franchisee that is charged with developing a geographical area and
may profit by sub-franchising and selling food and equipment to
those sub-franchisees-is Domino's Pizza Enterprises ("DPE"). As of
December 31, 2023, DPE operated 3,840 stores in 12 international
markets, accounting for approximately 28% of the Company's
international store count and 19% of its global store count.
In December 2023, Domino's hosted its 2023 Investor Day, during
which Defendants provided new long-term guidance of "1,100+" annual
global net store growth for the years 2024 to 2028.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) DPE, the Company's largest master franchisee,
was experiencing significant challenges with respect to both new
store openings and closures of existing stores; (ii) as a result,
Domino's was unlikely to meet its own previously issued long-term
guidance for annual global net store growth; (iii) accordingly,
Domino's business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On July 18, 2024, Domino's issued a press release announcing its Q2
2024 financial results. Among other items, Domino's disclosed that
it "expects it will fall 175 to 275 stores below its 2024 goal of
925+ net stores in international primarily as a result of
challenges in both openings and closures being faced by Domino's
Pizza Enterprises ('DPE'), one of its master franchisees."
Accordingly, "[t]he Company is temporarily suspending its guidance
metric of 1,100+ global net stores until the full effect of DPE's
store opens and closures on international net store growth are
known." On an earnings call held that same day to discuss the
Company's Q2 2024 results (the "Q2 2024 Earnings Call"), the
Company's Chief Financial Officer Defendant Sandeep Reddy further
revealed that the long-term guidance announced at the 2023 Investor
Day did not accurately reflect the extent of DPE's challenges with
respect to new store openings and closures of existing stores.
On this news, Domino's stock price fell $64.23 per share, or
13.57%, to close at $409.04 per share on July 18, 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. Today, 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]
DONALD FISCHETTO: Cruz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nelman Cruz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
DONALD S. FISCHETTO and D.F. EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION CORP. d/b/a ALL
ISLAND FENCE and RAILING, Case No. 2:24-cv-06680 (E.D.N.Y., Sept.
23, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and the New York Labor Law (collectively "NYLL"),, inter alia, from
Defendants: unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages for work
performed, unpaid spread of hours wages for each day Plaintiffs
worked ten or more hours, liquidated damages for failure to pay
overtime premium and spread of hours pay, liquidated damages for
failure to furnish Plaintiff a notice and acknowledgment at the
time of hiring, attorneys' fees, interest, and all costs and
disbursements associated with this action.
The Plaintiffs and the other Collective Plaintiffs are, and have
been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to
Defendants common policies, programs, practices, procedures,
protocols, routines, and rules willfully failing and refusing to
pay them one and one half times their hourly rate for work in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. The claims of Plaintiffs stated
herein are essentially the same as those of the other Collective
Plaintiffs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs largely reside in NASSAU County, New York.
The Defendants manufactures and installs fencing systems for both
residential and commercial uses and is also a fence manufacturer
and wholesaler.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
Hempstead, New York 11550
Phone: (516) 280.4600
Facsimile: (516) 280.4530
Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com
DTO ALTERATIONS: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN NAVARRO RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DTO ALTERATIONS LLC, CELTIC DEMOLITION, INC.,
and CELTIC 123 INC., and KIERAN SLEVIN, as an individual, Case No.
1:24-cv-07155 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2024) seeks to recover damages
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law arising out of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants
located at 156 Mount Vernon Avenue, Suite 210, Mount Vernon, New
York.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and other
employees similarly situated as authorized under the FLSA. The
employees similarly situated are the collective class.
-- Collective Class
"All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as
materials deliverers, helpers, and laborers, or other similarly
titled personnel with substantially similar job requirements
and pay provisions, who were performing the same sort of
functions for Defendants, other than the executive and
management positions, who have been subject to Defendants'
practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans
including willfully failing and refusing to pay required
overtime wage compensation."
The Plaintiff contends that he regularly worked a schedule of
shifts beginning at approximately 5:30 a.m. each workday and
regularly ending at approximately 3:30 p.m., or later, six to seven
days per week, during the relevant statutory period. Thus, the
Plaintiff was regularly required to work approximately 60-70 hours
or more hours per week during the relevant statutory period.
DTO ALTERATIONS LLC is a New York Foreign Limited-Liability
Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
EMPIRE FORD INC: Teixeira Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire Ford, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Michael Teixeira, Lamont Ferguson,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Empire
Ford, Inc., Richard Torres, Case No. 2473CV00665 (Mass. Super. Ct.,
Bristol Cty., Sept. 23, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."
Empire Ford -- https://www.empirefordinc.com/ -- is a Ford Dealer
serving Abingdon, Johnson City, and Kingsport with a large
inventory of new and used Ford vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
Matthew D. Patton, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
One Boston Place, Suite 2600
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: (617) 338-9400
EOS ENERGY: $8.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 17
----------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RICHARD DELMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRYANT R. RILEY, DANIEL
SHRIBMAN, KENNETH YOUNG,
PATRICK J. BARTELS, JR., JAMES L.
KEMPNER, TIMOTHY M. PRESUTTI,
ROBERT SUSS, and B. RILEY
PRINCIPAL SPONSOR CO. II, LLC,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 2023-0293-LWW
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO: All record and beneficial holders of Eos Energy Enterprises,
Inc. (f/k/a Riley Principal Merger Corp. II ("BRII")) (the
"Company") common stock who held such shares between 10:00 a.m. ET
on November 10, 2020 and November 16, 2020 (the "Class Period"),
but excluding the Excluded Persons (as defined in the Stipulation
and the Notice) (the "Class").1
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) plaintiff Richard Delman
("Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of the Class (as defined
herein); (ii) defendants Bryant R. Riley, Daniel Shribman, Kenneth
Young, Patrick J. Bartels, Jr., James L. Kempner, Timothy M.
Presutti, Robert Suss (collectively, the "Individual Defendants")
and B. Riley Principal Sponsor Co. II (together with the Individual
Defendants, the "Defendants"); and (iii) non-party Eos Energy
Enterprises, Inc. f/k/a B. Riley Principal Merger Corp. II ("New
Eos," or the "Company," and together with Plaintiff and Defendants,
the "Parties") have reached a proposed settlement for $8,500,000 in
cash (the "Settlement Amount") as set forth in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release (the "Settlement")
a copy of which is available at www.BRIIStockholderSettlement.com.
The Settlement, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on October 17,
2024 at 11:00 a.m., before The Honorable Lori W. Will, Vice
Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King
Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801, or remotely by telephone or
videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other
things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class for
settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules
23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff and
Plaintiff's Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and
whether Plaintiff should be finally appointed as Class
representatives for the Class and Plaintiff's Counsel should be
finally appointed as Class counsel for the Class; (iii) determine
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class and in the best interests of
the Class; (iv) determine whether the Action should be dismissed
with prejudice and the Releases provided under the Stipulation
should be granted; (v) determine whether the Order and Final
Judgment approving the Settlement should be entered; (vi) determine
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund
is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vii)
determine whether and in what amount any Fee and Expense Award
should be paid to Plaintiff's Counsel out of the Settlement Fund;
(viii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the
proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiff's Counsel's
application for a Fee and Expense Award; and (ix) consider any
other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in
connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the
Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of
the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at
the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.BRIIStockholderSettlement.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the
Settlement Administrator at BRII Stockholders Settlement, c/o A.B.
Data, Ltd., PO Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 877-411-4708,
info@BRIIStockholderSettlement.com,
www.BRIIStockholderSettlement.com. A copy of the Notice can also
be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.BRIIStockholderSettlement.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed in accordance
with the terms of the proposed Plan of Allocation attached as
Exhibit E to the Settlement or such other plan of allocation as is
approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation,
each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a
distribution from the Net Settlement Fund subject to the following
conditions.
For each Eligible Share for which a Claim Form is submitted:
(a) if such Eligible Class Member sold any Eligible Shares for
less than $10.10 (the "Redemption Price"), including the number of
Eligible Shares sold, the price at which such Eligible Shares were
sold (the "Eligible Share Sale Price"), and the date those Eligible
Shares were purchased and sold, and/or
(b) if such Eligible Class Member continues to hold any Eligible
Shares, the number of Eligible Shares the Class Member continues to
hold, and the date those Eligible Shares were purchased;
Such Eligible Class Member shall receive a pro rata distribution
(the "Claimed Distribution Amount") from the Net Settlement Fund
with such pro rata portion of the Net Settlement Fund to be
determined based on the Eligible Class members total loss ("Total
Loss") equal to the product of (i) the Redemption Price minus the
Eligible Share Sale Price and/or (ii) the Redemption Price minus
the closing price of such shares on the date the Complaint was
filed ($1.86). The Claimed Distribution Amount will be calculated
based on the Total Loss submitted by such Eligible Class Member,
divided by the combined Total Loss for all Eligible Class Members,
multiplied by the total amount in the Net Settlement Fund.
Following the distributions set forth in the foregoing paragraph,
any remaining cash in the Net Settlement Fund shall be distributed
pro rata from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i)
the balance of the Net Settlement Fund following the distributions
set forth in the foregoing paragraph and (ii) a fraction, the
numerator of which is the number of Eligible Shares held by the
Eligible Class Member, and the denominator of which is a number
representing the total number of Eligible Shares.
If any Eligible Class Member's entitlement to Net Settlement
Proceeds as calculated pursuant to the Plan of Allocation totals
less than $5.00, it will not be included in the calculations, and
no distribution will be made to that Eligible Class Member,
however, such Eligible Class Member will nevertheless be bound by
the Settlement and the Order and Final Judgment of the Court
dismissing this Action.
Any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation,
or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for the Fee and Expense Award
must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's
Counsel, Defendants' Counsel, and Company Counsel such that they
are received no later than October 2, 2024, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this
Summary Notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator or Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
BRII Stockholders Settlement
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
PO Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Telephone: 877-411-4708
Email: info@BRIIStockholderSettlement.com
Website: www.BRIIStockholderSettlement.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Email: ktucker@gelaw.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE:
Dated: July 1, 2024
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. (NYSE: ELS)
resulting from allegations that Equity LifeStyle Properties may
have issued materially misleading business information to the
investing public.
So What: If you purchased Equity LifeStyle Properties securities,
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22421 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On January 22, 2024, after market hours, Equity
LifeStyle Properties filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") a current report on Form 8-K in which it
announced that "[f]ollowing receipt of a further Comment Letter in
which the Staff of the SEC informed the Company it disagreed with
the materiality conclusion, the Company and the Audit Committee . .
. determined that the error was material to its previously issued
financial statements, as included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2022 and the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2023 (the 'Prior Period
Financial Statements')." Equity LifeStyle Properties further stated
that it "determined that the Prior Period Financial Statements, as
well as, any reports, related earnings releases, investor
presentations or similar communications of the Company's Prior
Period Financial Statements, should no longer be relied upon."
On this news, Equity LifeStyle Properties' stock fell $1.96 per
share, or 2.84%, to close at $67.00 per share on January 23, 2024.
The next day, it fell $1.45 per share, or 2.16%, to close at $65.55
per share on January 24, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
EVOLVE BANK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ritchey Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE RITCHEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EVOLVE BANK AND TRUST, Case No. 4:24-cv-00806-JM (E.D.
Ark., Sept. 20, 2024) alleges that Defendant failed to properly
secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of
approximately 7,640,112 individuals1, including their names, dates
of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers,
federal/state identification card numbers, tax identification
numbers, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, bank account
numbers, and other financial account information (the "Data
Breach").
The affected individuals include Evolve's direct customers and the
customers of Evolve's current and former financial technology
partners, whom Defendant refers to as "end users."
The Plaintiffs and Class Members' PII was collected and maintained
on Defendant's systems. Defendant failed to encrypt or redact the
PII it collected from Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff's
and Class Members' PII was compromised, accessed, and unlawfully
stolen in the Data Breach and has now been released to the dark
web. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect its customers' and end users' PII
from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack, says the suit.
The Defendant is a full-service financial services company that
specializes in payment processing solutions and banking. Defendant
accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides mortgage solutions,
card facilities, and online banking services. Defendant also works
with fintech companies by providing banking services to its fintech
partners' customers-the end users.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
One Allied Drive, Suite 1400
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
hbates@cbplaw.com
- and -
Nada Djordjevic, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn St., Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Joshua Neuman, Esq.
POGUST GOODHEAD LLC
Eight Tower Bridge
161 Washington St Suite 250
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 941-4204
E-mail: jneuman@pogustgoodhead.com
EXTRA BUTTER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Agnone Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Extra Butter, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-06612 (E.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 19, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.extrabutterny.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 Extra
Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its
website, the suit contends.
On Aug. 16, 2024 Plaintiff intended to purchase a piece of modern
apparel suitable for his active lifestyle. During his search, the
Plaintiff encountered Defendant's website, Extrabutterny.com where
he tried to learn more information about the goods and services
offered by the company and wanted to buy shorts, but was unable to
do so independently because of the many access barriers on the
Defendant's website, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Extra Butter's policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Mr. Agnone is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Extra Butter specializes in high-end streetwear, sneakers, and
fashion accessories, including shoes, jackets, hoodies, T-shirts,
pants, shorts, headwear, fragrances, and bags.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HORWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
FACEBOOK INC: Class Certification Hearings Continued to Oct. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Klein, et al., v.
Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570 (N.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 03,
2020), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order continuing
class certification hearings to Oct. 31, 2024, to accommodate a
trial.
The nature of suit states antitrust litigation.
Facebook is a social media and social networking service owned by
American technology conglomerate Meta.[CC]
FACTS ON DEMAND: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 23, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATE MOORE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FACTS ON DEMAND,
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02191-MHC-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
Christopher Bly entered a scheduling order:
-- Discovery in this case shall close on May 23, 2025.
-- Plaintiff shall inform Defendant if she is moving for class
certification no later than the last day of the discovery
period.
-- If Plaintiff is moving for class certification, her class
certification motion shall be due by June 23, 2025.
-- If Plaintiff moves for class certification, any summary
judgment
motion shall be due no later than 30 days following the
Court's final ruling on the class certification motion.
-- If Plaintiff does not move for class certification, any summary
judgment motion shall be due no later than June 23, 2025. See
Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(b).
The Court offers the services of its Magistrate Judges to mediate
cases, at no cost, upon request. Should the parties agree at any
point in the case that settlement discussions are likely to benefit
from such mediation, they should file a joint motion asking the
Court to stay all deadlines and to refer the case to mediation.
Facts On Demand offers national background checks and employment
screening services to all industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g6LOZz at no extra
charge.[CC]
FATHOM REALTY: Agrees to Settle Conspiracy Suit for $2.95-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Jensen of National Mortgage Professional reports that Fathom
Realty, subsidiary of Fathom Holdings Inc., that provides
residential brokerage, mortgage, title, and Software as a Service
(SaaS) offerings for brokerages and agents, reached a nationwide
settlement in the class-action lawsuit, Burnett v. The National
Association of Realtors (NAR), which alleged that large real estate
brokerages were in conspiracy to artificially inflate home prices.
Per the settlement, Fathom Realty is expected to pay $500,000 into
a settlement fund within five days after the settlement is formally
approved by the court; $500,000 on or before October 1st, 2025, and
$1,950,000 on or before October 1st, 2026. Fathom Realty has also
agreed to adhere to the rule changes put forth by NAR.
Fathom Holdings' press release also states that the company will be
able to make these payments without compromising its business.
However, Fathom Holdings CEO Marco Fregenal made it clear in his
public statement that the settlement should not be taken as an
admission of liability or an acknowledgment of the validity of any
claims set forth in the class-suit.
"We believe that this settlement represents the most prudent way
forward, enabling our agents to focus on their clients without the
distraction of prolonged litigation," Fregenal stated. "We continue
to assert that Fathom never participated in any conspiracy to
inflate commissions and continue to believe that due to our
flat-fee model, there was no incentive to join any such conspiracy.
Entering into a settlement now has the benefits of avoiding ongoing
legal fees and removing the demand on the executive team's time,
allowing us to focus on growing our business and ensuring our
agents continue to have the opportunity to excel in their service
to clients." [GN]
FCA US: Court Allows Additional Discovery in Clayton
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONYA CLAYTON, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US
LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-12995-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Matthew Leitman entered an order allowing additional discovery and
briefing regarding the Defendant's declarations produced in
response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
On Sept. 18, 2024, the Court held a conference to address issues
raised in Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Take Limited Discovery
Regarding Defendant's Late Disclosed Declarations and Defendant FCA
US LLC's Response thereto.
Having reviewed the parties' filings and after hearing the parties'
arguments at the conference, the Court directs the parties to
proceed as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs are granted leave to serve one set of written
discovery on FCA US regarding the declarations submitted as
Exhibit Q to Defendant FCA US LLC's Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification;
-- The Plaintiffs are granted leave to issue subpoenas and to take
the depositions of up to 5 of the declarants;
-- The Plaintiffs may file a 7-page supplemental brief in support
of
their Motion for Class Certification limited to addressing the
declarations produced by FCA US in its response to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification within 45 days of this Order;
and
-- FCA US may file a 7-page supplemental brief that is limited in
scope to the arguments raised in Plaintiffs' supplemental brief
regarding the declarations provided by FCA US within 14 days
after
the Plaintiffs' submission.
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IvypKB at no extra
charge.[CC]
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Court Extends Discovery-Related Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY HOWARDS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00869-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael
Barrett entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to
extend certain discovery deadlines.
The July 29, 2024 Second Amended Calendar Order is amended as
follows:
Event Current Modified
Deadline
Deadline
Deadline for Defendant's Sept. 18, 2024 Oct. 2,
2024
Disclosure and Report of Class
Certification Expert(s)
Deadline for the Disclosure of Oct. 1, 2024 Held in
Non-Expert (Fact) Witnesses Abeyance
until
Fact-
Discovery
Cutoff
Established
Deadline for Plaintiff to Depose Oct. 7, 2024 Oct. 21,
2024
Defendant's Expert(s)
Deadline for Plaintiff's Oct. 30, 2024 Nov. 14,
2024
Disclosure and Report of
Rebuttal Class Certification
Expert(s)
Deadline for Defendant to Depose Nov. 22, 2024 Dec. 6,
2024
Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert(s)
Fifth Third Bank is a bank holding company headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QCC1yi at no extra
charge.[CC]
FIVE BELOW: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE BELOW, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06509 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.fivebelow.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Five Below, Inc. operates as a specialty value retailer. The
Company offers phone cases, led lights, headphones, chargers,
crafts, clothing, stationery, party supplies, candy, sports, media,
beauty, books, and pet products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
FLOWER POWER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Igartua Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. FLOWER POWER NYC CORP. d/b/a FLOWER POWER DISPENSERS,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07120 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2024) contends that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate the
Defendant's Website, www.flowerpowerdispensers.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The suit claims that the Plaintiff was injured when attempting to
access Defendant's Website www.flowerpowerdispensers.com around
Sept. 13, 2024, from his home in Bronx County, in an effort to
search for and purchase the Defendant's products and services,
including their premium cannabis, but encountered various access
barriers, which denied him full and equal access to the Defendant's
online goods, content, and services.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that 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.
Flower Power is a New York corporation that owns and maintains a
licensed cannabis dispensary.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
FLOWERS FOODS: Salgado Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Salgado, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Flowers Foods,
Inc., a Georgia corporation, and Holsum Bakery, Inc., an Arizona
corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-00420-JGZ (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
under
section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA");
(2) directing that notice be issued to all current and former
Flowers' Distributors working in Arizona from Sept. 15, 2019
to
the date the notice is distributed (the "Distributors");
(3) approving the Proposed Notice and Consent to Opt-In to
Collective Action (Exhibits 1-2);
(4) authorizing Salgado to mail and email notice to all
Distributors; and
(5) requiring that within fourteen days of the Court's ruling on
this Motion, Defendants Flowers Foods, Inc. and Holsum
Bakery,
Inc., produce the requested information of all
Distributors.
Flowers is a producer and distributor of packaged bakery foods in
the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uKIuz2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC
2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 598-4000
E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com
patti@frankelsyverson.com
FOOT & ANKLE: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Doe Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FOOT & ANKLE CENTER OF ILLINOIS, P.C., Case No.
3:24-cv-03263-CRL-KLM (C.D. Ill., Sept. 19, 2024) seeks to address
Defendant's outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of
disclosing the confidential Personally Identifying Information1
and/or Protected Health Information of the Plaintiff and the
proposed Class Members to third parties, including Meta Platforms,
Inc. d/b/a Meta, Google, LLC, Frequence, LLC, MH Sub I, LLC d/b/a
Internet Brands, The Trade Desk Main Street, LLC, and potentially
others.
Despite its unique position as a trusted healthcare provider, the
Defendant knowingly configured and implemented into its website,
https://www.myfootandanklecenter.com/ code-based tracking devices
known as "trackers" or "tracking technologies," which collected and
transmitted its patients' Private Information to Facebook, Google,
Frequence, Internet Brands, The Trade Desk, and possibly other
third parties, without its patients' knowledge or authorization,
the suit contends.
Operating as designed and as implemented by Foot & Ankle, the Meta
Pixel allowed Defendant to unlawfully disclose Plaintiff's and
Class Members' private health information, alongside identifying
details to Facebook, the suit adds.
As a direct, proximate, and traceable result of the Defendant's
negligence and/or negligent supervision, the Plaintiff and Class
Members have allegedly suffered or imminently will suffer injury
and damages, including monetary damages, inappropriate
advertisements and use of their Private Information for advertising
purposes, and increased risk of future harm, embarrassment,
humiliation, frustration, and emotional distress.
Foot & Ankle utilized data from these trackers to market its
services and bolster its profits. Facebook utilizes data from the
Meta Pixel and CAPI to build data profiles for the purpose of
creating targeted online advertisements and enhanced marketing
services, which it sells for profit, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident and citizen of the
State of Illinois, where he intends to remain. He is a patient of
the Defendant and a victim of its unauthorized Disclosure of
Private Information.
The Defendant operates podiatric clinics that specialize in "all
areas of foot and ankle care including trauma, ankle factures,
Achilles ruptures, ankle and foot pain, heel pain, arthritis,
ingrown toenails, jammer toes, toenail fungus, diabetic ulcers,
bunions, fusions, revisions, and total ankle replacement."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
Mallory K. Schiller, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
mschiller@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
Emily E. Schiller, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
eschiller@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS & BORELLI, PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
FREEDOM FOREVER: Civil Standing Order Entered in Clark Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON ANTHONY CLARK, v.
FREEDOM FOREVER LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01903-SSS-DTB (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes entered a civil standing order:
-- Service of the Complaint
The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with
Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service.
-- Removed Actions
Any answers filed in state court must be e-filed in this Court,
either as an exhibit to the Notice of Removal or as a separate
filing. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in accordance
with
Local Rule 6-1.
-- Mandatory Chambers Courtesy Copies
All original filings are to be filed electronically pursuant to
Local Rule 5.4.
-- Stipulations to Amend
Parties filing an amended pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) shall file the stipulation to amend
the
pleading with a separately attached proposed amended pleading
and
proposed order. The parties' proposed order should address any
hearing affected by the filing of the amended pleading.
-- Communications with Chambers
Counsel must not attempt to contact the Court or chambers staff
by
email, telephone, or by any other ex parte means.
-- Settlement Conference/ Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR")
As stated in Local Rule 16-15, the parties in every action must
participate in a Settlement Conference or Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) procedure.
-- Compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)
The parties should begin to propound discovery before the
Scheduling Conference.
-- Discovery Matters Referred to United States Magistrate Judge
All discovery matters are hereby referred to the assigned
Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. The
assigned Magistrate Judge's initials follow the Judge Sykes'
initials next to the action number.
Freedom Forever is a residential solar installation company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=khVsJr at no extra
charge.[CC]
FTX TRADING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Securities Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Beganski, writing for Decrypt, reports that the law firm
targeting OpenSea has brought a series of cases against crypto
companies, such as FTX and Binance.
Moskowitz Law Firm filed another class-action lawsuit against a
crypto firm Thursday, September 19, this time alleging that
OpenSea's customers were sold NFTs as unregistered securities.
The lawsuit brought in a Florida federal court claims that two
residents of the Sunshine State sustained damages as a result
purchasing NFTs on the platform, which served as a go-to place to
purchase digital art and collectibles when the NFT market ran
red-hot in 2021 and 2022.
"We have learned a great deal in our extensive crypto litigation,"
Moskowitz Law Firm Managing Partner Adam Moskowitz told Decrypt in
a statement. "With today's ever-changing regulation, there should
be a process to sell NFTs in a well-regulated environment."
The Miami-based law firm is currently litigating against a wide
range of crypto firms and their associates, including FTX and 11
celebrities who endorsed the collapsed crypto exchange. It has also
sued basketball legend Shaquille O'Neal over his Solana-based NFT
project Astrals, and soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo over his
promotion of the crypto exchange Binance. [GN]
GAINWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Batchelder Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanne Batchelder, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GAINWELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a California
limited liability company, Case No. 2:24-cv-08140 (C.D. Cal., Sept.
23, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and common law.
Despite knowing Plaintiff and all other CSRs perform this pre-,
mid-, and post-shift work, Defendant and its managers failed to
make any effort to stop or disallow it and instead suffered and
permitted it to happen. Because Defendant requires its CSRs to
perform pre-, mid-, and post shift work off-the-clock, the hours
tracked in Defendant's timekeeping system are inaccurate
representations of the total amount of time CSRs spend working for
Defendant. Thus, the hours reflected on the CSRs' paystubs are also
inaccurate representations of the hours they worked.
Despite its ability to track the amount of time Plaintiff and other
CSRs spend in connection with the pre-, mid-, and post-shift
boot-up, login, and log-out processes, Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff and other CSRs for the off-the-clock work they performed
each shift, thus breaching its contracts with its CSRs. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated CSRs regularly worked overtime and
non-overtime hours for which they were not paid, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a remote Customer
Service Representative between April 10, 2023 and April 18, 2024.
Gainwell Technologies, LLC, is a California limited liability
company with its principal office located in Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Ste. 860
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 579-0600
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
GALDERMA LABORATORIES: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Mincberg, writing for People For, reports that Judge Lindsay
Jenkins, who was nominated by President Biden to the federal
district court for the Northern District of Illinois, rejected a
motion to dismiss and allowed a class action against an acne
treatment manufacturer to go forward. The complaint contends that
an ingredient in the product degrades into benzene, which can cause
cancer. The September 2024 decision was in Williams v Galderma
Laboratories.
What happened in this case?
In 2023, Skylar Williams purchased Differin cleanser, an acne
treatment product made and sold by Galderma Laboratories. She saw
no warning labels on the product. In March 2024, an independent
laboratory released findings showing that a key ingredient in
Differin, called BPO, "degrades into benzene, a known carcinogen"
at high temperatures.
On behalf of herself and other purchasers of Differin, Williams
filed a class action against the corporation, She contended that
Galderma failed to comply with good manufacturing practices as
recognized by the FDA, that Differin is accordingly misbranded and
adulterated in violation of both federal and state law, that
Galderma's failure to disclose and other conduct constitute "unfair
and deceptive practices" under state statutes, including the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ICFA"),
and that the company was unjustly enriched through sale of the
product. Galderma moved to dismiss the case as a matter of law,
primarily contending that Williams' claims are preempted by federal
law, which it complies with.
How did Judge Jenkins Rule and Why is it Important?
Judge Jenkins ruled that the corporation's pre-emption claims did
not warrant dismissal of the lawsuit, which should go forward. She
explained that a lawsuit like this one could proceed where state
law imposes requirements that are "parallel" to federal mandates.
In this case, she went on, the ICFA mandates good manufacturing
practices in a way that is "parallel' to federal law, so the case
for violation of the state law can continue. More specifically, she
wrote, the complaint alleged that Galderma failed to comply with
applicable testing and safety requirements "given the known link
between BPO and benzene." Although Jenkins held that some of
Williams' theories, like failure to warn, were pre-empted by
federal law, she ruled that the alleged facts "plausibly suggest"
that Williams and other class members are entitled to relief under
ICFA and other state consumer protection laws and under the theory
of unjust enrichment.
Judge Jenkins' opinion is obviously important to Skylar Williams
and other class members, who can now seek damages and justice from
the corporation. The ruling may also be important in other cases
where corporate defendants try to avoid liability based on a
federal pre-emption theory, particularly in the Seventh Circuit,
which includes Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana. In addition, the
decision serves as a reminder of the importance of promptly
confirming fair-minded judges to our federal courts. [GN]
GLS US FREIGHT: Castro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GLS US Freight, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Josue Castro, individually an don
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLS US Freight, LLC, GLS
Enterprises, LLC, General Logistics Systems US, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0012214 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept.
23, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
General Logistics Systems B.V. (GLS) -- - https://www.gls-us.com/
-- is a parcel services provider operating in Europe and North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92318
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
GOOD EARTH: Faces Young Suit Over Blind's Access to Online Store
----------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOD EARTH TEAS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07146 (S.D.N.Y., September 20, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://goodearth.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text
equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and
linked images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Good Earth Teas, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
GOOGLE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 16, 2025
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Google Inc. Cookie Placement
Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 1:12-md-02358-JDW (D. Del.),
the Hon. Judge Joshua Wolson entered a scheduling order as
follows:
1. On or before Oct. 2, 2024, the Parties shall meet and confer
to
set aside dates for counsel to hold open for depositions
before
the close of discovery.
2. All motions to amend the Complaint and to join or add
additional
parties shall be filed on or before Sept. 27, 2024.
3. Each Party shall serve any affirmative expert reports
(meaning
an expert report that the Party will use in its
case-in-chief),
if any, on or before March 7, 2025.
4. Each Party shall serve any rebuttal expert reports (meaning
an
expert report that the Party will use to rebut an expert
opinion
from its opponent), if any, on or before April 4, 2025.
5. The Parties shall complete all discovery by April 25, 2025.
6. The Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification
on
or before May 16, 2025.
Google is an American multinational corporation and technology
company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology,
cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce,
consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fmNeQb at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOOGLE LLC: Republican AGs Push Settlement Payment to Suit Victims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Herlihy of FOXBusiness reports that a group of Republican
attorneys general (AGs) are intervening in a class action lawsuit
involving Google, after the company agreed to settle the suit that
claimed it was wrongly tracking data.
The AGs say Google is paying big bucks to groups like the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the lawyers involved, but not to
the victims.
"The Parties agreed on a $62 million settlement in a data privacy
class action arising out of Google's tracking and storing of 247.7
million mobile device users' location data," the group of 20 AGs
wrote in an amicus brief filed Wednesday, Sept. 18.
"Yet that agreement gave class members no damages. Instead, most of
the settlement fund was devoted to payments to third-party
recipients that are not parties to the litigation," he said.
The lawsuit accused the company of tracking down user information
without consent, even if they used a privacy setting that says it
will prevent Google from doing so, the settlement states.
According to the settlement, Google published a support page on how
to manage and delete a user's location history, which said, "When
you turn off location history for your Google account, it's off for
all devices associated with that Google account."
However, despite its assurances, "Google's representation was
false," the settlement states. An Associated Press report found
that turning off "Location History" only stopped Google from
creating a location timeline that the user could view, but the tech
giant still continued to track the phone owners and kept a record
of their locations, the settlement says.
Even when "Location History" is turned off, the settlement says a
user's location is stored every time they use any Google-controlled
features on their phone, including the Google Maps app, weather
apps and searches made with the phone's mobile browser.
In their amicus brief, led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird,
the AGs said "many of the approved third-party recipients do not
bear a 'substantial nexus' to the interests of the class members."
The recipient groups include the ACLU, Free Press and The
Information Society Project at Yale.
Though none of those groups are party in the case, they were
selected to be a stand-in for the victims.
"These 'powerful interest group[s]' that 'conduct political
activity in many fields wholly unrelated to privacy and technology'
are not suitable recipients in this litigation."
Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and
Virginia signed on to the brief.
Google did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request
for comment. The ACLU, Free Press and The Information Society
Project at Yale also did not respond to Fox Digital's request for
comment. [GN]
GREENSKY INC: Belyea Seeks to File "Confidential" Docs Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al.,
v. GREENSKY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01693-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to consider whether
material designated as "Confidential" should be filed under seal.
Specifically, the Defendants have designated as "Confidential"
Exhibit 75 to David Stein's Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs'
Reply Brief in Support of Class Certification.
Additionally, the following portions of Plaintiffs' reply brief in
support of class certification quote from or otherwise refer to
exhibits that have been filed provisionally under seal, and so may
also be potentially considered confidential by Defendants:
Provisionally sealed portion Evidence offered in
of Reply brief support of sealing
Page 1, line 17 (entire line) Defendants to provide
evidence per L.R.
79-5(f)
Page 1, line 26 (between "percentage" Defendants to provide
and end of sentence) evidence per L.R.
79-5(f)
Page 6, lines 13-14 (between Defendants to provide
beginning of line and) evidence per L.R.
79-5(f)
Page 6, line 23 (between "through" Defendants to provide
and "of") evidence per L.R.
79-5(f)
Page 6, lines 24-25 (entire sentence) Defendants to provide
evidence per L.R.
79-5(f)
GreenSky operates as a technology company in the payment, credit,
and commerce space.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gO3rJt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
Amanda M. Karl, Esq.
Brian Johnson, Esq.
Delaney Brooks, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Ste 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: ds@classlawgroup.com
amk@classlawgroup.com
bej@classlawgroup.com
db@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
Madelyn Petersen, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 500 West
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
mpetersen@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Bryce Bell, Esq.
Andrew R. Taylor, Esq.
BELL LAW, LLC
2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 886-8206
Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
E-mail: bryce@belllawkc.com
at@belllawkc.com
- and -
Daniel T. LeBel, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW PRACTICE OF
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 513-1414
Facsimile: (877) 563-7848
E-mail: danlebel@consumerlawpractice.com
HOME PARTNERS: Richmond Seeks OK of Amended Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK RICHMOND, MICHAEL
MCDERMOTT and KELLEY MCDERMOTT each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. HOME PARTNERS HOLDINGS LLC, HP
WASHINGTON I LLC, HPA BORROWER 2017-1 LLC, and OPVHHJV LLC, d/b/a
PATHLIGHT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Case No. 3:22-cv-05704-DGE (W.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their amended motion for class certification.
The case involves approximately 3,500 class members, potentially
more, who allege their injuries arise out of Defendants' standard
practices. Instead of litigating thousands of claims in overlapping
lawsuits with duplicative discovery and costs, it is far superior
to pursue these claims as a class.
This amended motion addresses the Court's concerns about the
proposed class definitions and the RLTA claims in connection with
Rule 23.
The proposed class representatives, along with Plaintiff Richmond
and proposed class representative Erin Wise, seek certification of
the following damages classes under Rule 23(b)(3), as follows and
as more specifically described in the argument below:
A. All persons who have leased from Defendants in Washington
under
a written rental agreement that was active or in effect as of
Sept. 21, 2016, and who (1) were required by Defendants'
leases
and policies to perform or pay for routine repairs or
maintenance or for wear resulting from ordinary use of the
premises, specifically HVAC filter replacement, lawn/yard or
irrigation system maintenance, snow or ice removal, or
appliance, fireplace, chimney repair or replacement, (2) made
a
maintenance or repair request that was denied as "resident
responsibility" or "as-is," or (3) made a maintenance or
repair
request to Defendants in which remediation was not commenced
or
promptly completed within the time limits specified by RCW
59.18.070 (the "Maintenance and Repair Subclass").
B. All persons who have leased from Defendants under a rental
agreement in effect on or after September 21, 2016, and who
were
charged late fees or attorneys’ fees (the "Fee Subclass");
C. All persons who moved in on or after Sept. 21, 2019, and from
whom Defendants collected a security deposit without
providing a
move-in written statement or checklist conforming to the
criteria stated in RCW 59.18.260 (the "Move-in Subclass");
and
D. All persons who moved out on or after Sept. 21, 2019,
and to whom Defendants mailed a statement without
providing a full and specific statement for the reason for
withholding in the time and manner specified by RCW 59.18.280
(the "Move-out Subclass")
These definitions are narrowed from the definition in Plaintiffs'
operative complaint and as originally proposed by Plaintiffs in
their motion for class certification, based on the Court's orders
and evidence obtained in discovery, which has not closed.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s4bjPb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anne T. Regan, Esq.
Lindsey L. Larson, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: 952-941-4005
E-mail: aregan@hjlawfirm.com
llabellelarson@hjlaw.com
- and -
Andrew Lemmon, Esq.
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
Michael Dunn, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
E-mail: alemmon@milberg.com
sharris@milberg.com
michael.dunn@milberg.com
- and -
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
Eura Chang, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN,
P.L.L.P.
100 South Washington Ave, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
E-mail: jcbourne@locklaw.com
echang@locklaw.com
HORMEL FOODS: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in IL
-----------------------------------------------------
Hormel Foods Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended July 28, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 4, 2024, that beginning in
December 2019, a series of putative class action complaints were
filed against the company, as well as several other
turkey-processing companies and a benchmarking service called "Agri
Stats," in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois styled In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that from at least 2010
to 2017, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of turkey products—including
through the use of Agri Stats, in violation of federal antitrust
laws. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief,
pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Since
the original filing, certain direct-action plaintiffs have opted
out of class treatment and are proceeding with individual direct
actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future.
Hormel is a global manufacturer and marketer of branded food
products with three reportable segments: retail, foodservice, and
international.
HORMEL FOODS: Settlement in Brown Suit for Court Nod
----------------------------------------------------
Hormel Foods Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended July 28, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 4, 2024, that the company executed
a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs on August 20, 2024, to
settle a November 2022, a putative class of non-supervisory
production and maintenance employees at "red meat" processing
plants in the continental U.S. filed a class action complaint
against the company and various other beef- and pork-processing
companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
styled "Brown, et al. v. JBS USA Food Co., et al." for the payment
of $13.5 million and the provision of certain data and information.
The settlement remains subject to Court approval. The agreed-upon
settlement amount will be paid following preliminary court
approval.
In the operative amended complaint filed in January 2024, the
plaintiffs allege that, since 2000, the defendants directly and
through wage surveys and a benchmarking service exchanged
information regarding compensation in an effort to depress and fix
wages and benefits for employees at beef- and pork-processing
plants in violation of federal antitrust laws.
The complaint sought, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
Hormel is a global manufacturer and marketer of branded food
products with three reportable segments: retail, foodservice, and
international.
HORMEL FOODS: Settlement in Securities Suit for Court Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
Hormel Foods Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended July 28, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 4, 2024, that the company executed
a settlement agreement with plaintiffs on August 20, 2024, to
settle an amended consolidated class action complaint for the
payment of $3.5 million. The settlement remains subject to court
approval. The agreed-upon settlement amount will be paid following
preliminary Court approval.
In December 2019, a putative class of non-supervisory production
and maintenance employees at poultry-processing plants in the
continental U.S. filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint against Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc. and various other
poultry processing companies in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland styled "Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et
al." In the operative amended complaint filed in February 2022, the
plaintiffs allege that, since 2000, the defendants directly and
through wage surveys and a benchmarking service exchanged
information regarding compensation in an effort to depress and fix
wages and benefits for employees at poultry-processing plants, feed
mills, and hatcheries in violation of federal antitrust laws. The
complaint sought, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
In July 2022, the court partially granted the company's motion to
dismiss, and dismissed plaintiffs' per se wage-fixing claim as to
the company.
Hormel is a global manufacturer and marketer of branded food
products with three reportable segments: retail, foodservice, and
international.
HOSPITAL SISTERS: Bovard Suit Alleges Inadequate Data Security
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BOVARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-03261-CRL-KLM (C.D. Ill., September 16, 2024)
arises from a recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from
Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard
data security practices to protect Plaintiff and other patients'
personal identifying information and protected health information,
including private information.
According to the complaint, the data breach compromised and exposed
patients' private information such as names, addresses, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, medical
record numbers, health insurance information, and medical and
treatment information.
HSHS failed to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI.
Therefore, Plaintiff and Class members have been exposed to actual
harm consistent with the litany of injuries that data breaches
cause, including (a) loss of value of PII, (b) loss of time spent
dealing with the data breach, (c) imminent threat of and actual
theft of PII by cybercriminals (d) financial loss, such as
purchasing protective measures including credit monitoring, credit
freezes, credit reports, and other means of detecting and
mitigating identity theft and (e) any other types of quantifiable
harm that stem from the breach, including out-of-pocket losses,
adds the complaint.
Hospital Sisters Health System is a non-profit healthcare system
headquartered in Springfield, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
HP INC: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------
HP 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 it is facing a putative class action
complaint against HP, CEO Dion Weisler and former CFO Catherine
Lesjak in federal court in the Northern District of California. On
May 31, 2024, the court adopted a stipulation in which the
derivative plaintiffs and defendants agreed to consolidate the
derivative proceedings and extend the current stay through summary
judgment in said action.
On November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York
Retirement Fund, filed said case. The court appointed Maryland
Electrical Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff
filed a consolidated complaint, which additionally names as
defendants Enrique Lores and Richard Bailey. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that from November 5, 2015 to June 21, 2016, HP
and the named current and former officers violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information
and making false statements about HP's printing supplies business.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. HP and the
named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
On March 3, 2022, the court granted the motion to dismiss with
prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed the decision. On April 11, 2023, the
appellate court reversed the district court's decision and remanded
the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent
with the appellate opinion, including consideration of HP's other
arguments for dismissal.
On June 27, 2023, the district court issued an order setting the
briefing schedule for a renewed motion to dismiss.
HP is a global provider of personal computing and other digital
access devices, imaging and printing products, and related
technologies, solutions and services.
IMMACULATE HOME: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Response
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lakeesha Wilson, v.
Immaculate Home HealthCare Agency, Case No. 2:24-cv-01439-MSG (E.D.
Pa.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the
briefing schedule to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Conditional Collective Action
Certification.
Immaculate provides non-medical and medical home care services for
older adults, seniors, and people with medical conditions.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gJ6Zua at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard Hark, Esq.
HARK & HARK
1650 Market Street, 55th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2931
Telephone: (215) 665-0766
Facsimile: (215) 665-1225
E-mail: richard.hark@penncriminaldefense.com
INHOUSE PHYSICIANS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cooper Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INHOUSE PHYSICIANS CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08556 (N.D. Ill, Sept. 17, 2024) is class action
lawsuit against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure
and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current
and former Defendant patients' (collectively defined herein as the
"Class" or "Class Members") personally identifiable information and
protected health information, including names, addresses, dates of
birth, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, medical and health
information including condition or diagnosis, dates of service,
patient account/record/ID numbers, COVID test results
(collectively, the "Private Information") from cybercriminals.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and to follow
basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information now appears to be in the hands of cybercriminals.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly
increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft,
misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their
health privacy, Private Information being disseminated on the dark
web, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last
for the rest of their lives.
InHouse Physicians Corporation is a provider of innovative onsite
healthcare solutions that assist corporations in reducing
healthcare claims. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
T. J. Jesky, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF T.J. JESKY
205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810
Chicago, IL 60601-5902
Telephone: (312) 894-0130, Ext. 3
Facsimile: (312) 489-8216
Email: tj@jeskylaw.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Court Narrows Claims in Keown Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID KEOWN, et al., v.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL AIR RAIL TRANSPORTATION
WORKERS ("SMART"), Case No. 1:23-cv-03570-CRC (D.D.C.), the Hon.
Judge Christopher Cooper entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
The Court dismisses Counts 2, 4, 5, and 6 as they apply to both
plaintiffs and dismisses Count 1 as it applies to Plaintiff Angus.
The Court further entered an order that Smart shall file an Answer
to the remaining claims by Oct. 3, 2024.
On Sept. 9, 2023, SMART suffered a cyberattack that exposed the
records of roughly 62,000 individuals.
Keown sued Smart in November 2023; Angus followed in December
2023.
After an initial status conference covering both cases, the
Plaintiffs filed a joint amended complaint in January 2024.
The Plaintiffs David Keown and Diana Angus are former members of
the Smart.
Smart is a national union based in Washington, D.C., with over
200,000 members.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oQR3TQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
ITG COMMUNICATIONS: Stenberg Seeks Extension to File Reply
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADY STENBERG, for
himself and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. ITG
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01703-SDM-NHA (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a brief
extension of Plaintiff's deadline to respond to the Defendant's
motion to bifurcate proceedings and stay merits / class
certification discovery motion, by four days, until Sept. 27, 2024.
On June 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his collective action
complaint and demand for jury trial in the Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Court in and for Hillsborough County, FL, Case No.
24-CA-00461.
On July 19, 2024, the Defendant filed its notice of removal and
reassigned this action in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.
On Sept. 9, 2024, the Defendant filed its motion, seeking to
bifurcate discovery in this matter.
ITG is a national provider of fulfillment, construction and project
management services to the cable and telecommunications
industries.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xQSjyx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 327-5369
Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com
kimd@forthepeople.com
JUPITER TOWN: Feltzin Files ADA Class Suit
------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE FELTZIN, Plaintiff v. JUPITER TOWN CENTER, LLLP,
Defendant, Case No. 9:24-cv-81149 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 18, 2024) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals,
seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses,
and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The individual Plaintiff visits Defendant's commercial property and
businesses on September 3, 2024, and encountered multiple
violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and
enjoy the commercial property. The Defendant has discriminated
against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full
and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial
property and business, says the suit.
Jupiter Town Center, LLLP owns and operates commercial buildings
located in Jupiter, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
JUUL LABS: Hattiesburg Schools Secure Funds From Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Troth, writing for WDAM, reports that Hattiesburg Public
Schools have accepted a $79,000 settlement following a class action
lawsuit against Juul and Altria earlier this year.
HPS plans to use the settlement funds to support initiatives aimed
at preventing nicotine use among students and raising awareness
about the dangers of vaping.
The district says that they are still committed to ensuring a
healthier future for their students, free from the influence of
e-cigarettes.
With the settlement, the district also plans to collaborate with
local health organizations to create lasting solutions that combat
youth nicotine and vaping addiction.
Michael Marks, Executive Director of Schools Against Vaping,
alongside the Napoli Shkolnik PLLC Law Firm, recognizes the urgent
need to address the impact of e-cigarettes and vaping on youth.
The duo is working to assist multiple counties across the state in
fighting back against these harmful practices.
Juul and Altria, two distributors of electronic cigarettes and
nicotine/tobacco products, were found to have targeted school-age
children with their e-cigarette and vaping market strategies.
Both companies have a long history of advertising to youth.
Examples include placing ads on children’s television networks,
which have contributed to the rise in underage vaping and nicotine
addiction among minors. [GN]
KATZ NANNIS: Williams Alleges Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
DELORES JACKSON WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KATZ NANNIS + SOLOMON, PC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12416-ADB (D. Mass., September 20,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon
seclusion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its
network systems following a data breach discovered on or about
November 28, 2023. 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.
Katz Nannis + Solomon, PC is a certified public accounting firm,
headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
KELLY-MOORE PAINT: Court Narrows Claims in Morris Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL MORRIS, v.
KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC. AND FLACKSGROUP LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-00050-P (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark Pittman entered an
order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss.
The Court says that the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction is granted, and the claims against
Flacksgroup are dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim is
denied.
Mr. Morris argued that the essential contacts with the state of
Texas were that Flacksgroup had directed the termination of the
Kelly-Moore employees in January of 2024.
Thus, if Flacksgroup ever had sufficient minimum contacts with
Texas, those contacts could not have led to the injuries suffered
in the present case because Flacksgroup, as a corporate entity, did
not exist during the alleged injuries. Consequently, the claims
against Flacksgroup are dismissed with prejudice.
Mr. Morris and other similarly situated employees of Defendant
brought this suit to recover damages and Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") benefits under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the "WARN Act").
Kelly-Moore was an American paint manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rkqt4T at no extra
charge.[CC]
KOLD TRANS: Court Lifts Stay of Hamilton Action
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bennie Hamilton v. Kold
Trans, LLC et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order:
-- granting in part the Defendants' Ex Parte Application to
continue
opposition to class certification deadline and related
deadlines;
-- directing deadline for TRO Opposition; and
-- lifting stay of action.
The Court will address the TRO Application in a separate order. The
Court, having considered the ex parte application and finding good
cause in part therefor, hereby grants in part the ex parte
application. The Court orders as follows:
1. The Defendants' request to continue the Defendants' deadline
to
oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
denied.
The deadline for Defendants' opposition remains Monday Sept.
23,
2024.
2. The Defendants may file a supplement to their opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. This supplement
shall be limited to five pages and shall only address issues
related to Allman's final two hours of deposition testimony.
This supplement must be filed, it at all, within 14 days of
the
completion of Allman's deposition.
3. The Parties shall meet and confer and agree upon a date and
location for the completion of Allman’s deposition. The
parties
shall then file a status report informing the Court when
Allman's deposition will take place. This status report must
be
filed within 14 days of this Order. If the deposition is
rescheduled after the status report is filed, then the
parties
should promptly file an updated status report.
4. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class
certification shall be due 31 days after the deadline for the
Defendants to file the supplement to their opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In other words,
the
Plaintiffs' reply shall be due 45 days after the completion
of
Allman's deposition. This deadline shall be in place
regardless
of whether Defendants actually file a supplement.
5. The Court orders that, to the extent this was not already
clear,
this action is no longer stayed.
On Sept. 16, 2024, the Defendants filed an ex parte application to
continue opposition to class certification deadline and related
deadlines.
On Sept. 17, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
Defendants' ex parte application.
On Sept. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs' filed an ex parte application
for a temporary restraining order.
Kold Trans provides refrigerated transportation using truckload and
logistics.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RyLRoM at no extra
charge.[CC]
LATEKIRO INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Bunting Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
RASHETA BUNTING, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. LATEKIRO INC. d/b/a
Primp & Polish, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06553 (E.D.N.Y., Sept.
18, 2024) is a civil rights action against Latekiro for its failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
http//:www.Primpandpolish.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
Plaintiff Bunting has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase
on Primpandpolish.com, most recently on August 25, 2024, September
4, 2024, and September 10, 2024, but was unable to do so
independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's
website. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not
limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down
menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting
and labeling, the denial of keyboard access, empty links that
contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the
same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Latekiro 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.
Latekiro Inc., d/b/a Primp & Polish, operates the website that
provides services such as manicures and pedicures and other related
nail services, as well as the ability to shop for nail
products.[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
LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY GIBBS, TOBY HOY,
and SHARON MCCOLLAGH, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. LIVEFREE EMERGENCY RESPONSE, INC., d/b/a
MEDIBUTTON, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
4:23-cv-00170-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge B. Lynn Winmill
entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to extend
deadlines:
1. Defendants' response to the pending motion for class
certification is now due on Oct. 18, 2024. The optional
reply,
if any, shall be filed 14 days from the date the response is
filed.
2. The Oct. 15, 2024 deadline to conduct ADR is hereby vacated.
That deadline will be reset after the Court resolves the
motion
for class certification. The parties are directed to propose
the
ADR deadline within 7 days of the date the Court resolves the
motion for class certification.
3. The interim status conference, scheduled for Sept. 23, 2024
is
vacated. The Court will reschedule that conference after it
resolves the motion for class certification. When the parties
propose a new ADR deadline, they shall also propose a new
time
frame for the interim status conference.
4. All other deadlines in the Scheduling Order remain
unchanged.
LiveFree Emergency is a manufacturer of personal safety and
emergency assistance products for the elderly.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kp5zoK at no extra
charge.[CC]
LLR INC: Ponkey Appeals Suit Dismissal and Transfer Bid Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Jessica Ponkey, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LLR, Inc.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00518-AB-SHK, pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Jessica
Ponkey, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying
their motion to transfer, and granting the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.
According to the complaint filed on March 24, 2021, LuLaRoe is an
unlawful, fraudulent pyramid scheme which preys on stay-at-home
mothers, promising them they can generate substantial income while
still being able to spend time at home with their families. LuLaRoe
recruits these mothers to become "consultants." When joining, these
recruited "consultants" believe that they will be able to sell
LuLaRoe's various clothing items to a retail market.
LuLaRoe's unlawful conduct has affected tens of thousands of
consultants all across the U.S. and has been recognized by
governmental agencies as an illegal scheme, asserts the complaint.
Given the Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions, as well as
breaches of contract, the Plaintiff is further bringing breach of
contract, California Corporations Code violation, and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims against the
Defendants.
On Sept. 1, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to change venue to
the Central District of California - Eastern Division.
On Oct. 17, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.
On Sept. 5, 2024, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
transfer venue to the Eastern Division of the Central District of
California and granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss without
leave to amend. The Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with
prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Ponkey, et al. v. LLR, Inc., et
al., Case No. 24-5729, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 20, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 25,
2024;
-- Appellants' Opening Brief is due on October 30, 2024; and
-- Appellees' Answering Brief is due on November 29, 2024.[BN]
Defendants-Appellees LLR, INC., et al. are represented by:
Alejandro S. Angulo, Esq.
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor
Irvine, CA 92612
MENDES PAINTING: Faces Morales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MELVIN MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MENDES PAINTING AND DECORATING, INC and
ANTONIO MENDES, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07040
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2024) is a wage and hour action brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The suit arises from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
compensation at rates of not less than one and one-half times
Plaintiff's regular hourly rate of pay, for each hour worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failure to comply with the
notice and record keeping requirements of the New York State Wage
Theft Prevention Act.
Plaintiff Morales worked as a painter performing painting jobs on
houses and apartments for each Defendant from 2015 to April 1,
2024.
Mendes Painting and Decorating, Inc. is a painting company with its
principal place of business in Pomona, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford Tucker, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-2243
Facsimile: (718) 559-6517
E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com
META PLATFORMS: Isgur Sues Over Illegal Access to Facebook Accounts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SARA ISGUR, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-06559 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2024) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
Facebook users seeking damages for Meta's breach of its contract,
and for injunctive relief to regain access to their Facebook under
California's Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, in violation of express terms of Meta's
Facebook Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, referred here as the
"Contract," Meta has allowed hackers to abscond with hundreds of
thousands of Facebook accounts, and the personal information
therein, with impunity -- while it continues to deny Plaintiff and
similarly situated non-business Facebook users access to their own
accounts.
The Plaintiff and similarly situated Class members Facebook
accounts were compromised by hackers who took over their accounts
and blocked them out. Meta turned a blind eye to these systematic
security breaches on its platform -- allowing hackers to steal
their valuable user accounts. Instead of providing customer support
to take stolen accounts back from hackers, Meta denies Plaintiff
and similarly situated Class members access and prevents Plaintiff
and similarly situated Class members from re-gaining access to
their Facebook accounts while hackers continue their unauthorized
use of the accounts unabated, says the suit.
Meta Platforms, Inc. doing business as Meta, and formerly named
Facebook, Inc., and The Facebook, Inc., is an American
multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
- and -
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Gemma Seidita, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue
Northwest, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
gseidita@tzlegal.com
META PLATFORMS: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that an Illinois federal judge has denied Meta's
attempt to dismiss a biometric privacy class action involving its
Messenger and Messenger Kids apps. The plaintiffs, a group of
parents and children, allege that Meta unlawfully collected and
stored facial geometries in violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
Meta argued that the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
(COPPA) should preempt the BIPA claims. However, United States
District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel ruled that COPPA does not
override BIPA's provisions, emphasizing that the two laws target
different types of data. While COPPA regulates personal information
such as addresses and Social Security numbers, BIPA specifically
addresses biometric identifiers like facial geometry. Rosenstengel
noted that there is no direct conflict between the two statutes and
that BIPA's requirements are not inconsistent with COPPA's
objectives.
The lawsuit centers around allegations that Meta collects face
geometries when users, including children, apply augmented reality
filters in the Messenger apps. Meta claims it does not store
biometric data or use it to identify individuals. Rosenstengel
rejected this defense, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently
alleged that Meta's technology could match users' identities to the
facial scans, as names and face geometries are linked during the
account setup process.
Meta also argued that California law should govern the lawsuit, as
the company’s terms of service specify California law for
disputes, and therefore, the BIPA claims would not be valid.
However, Rosenstengel rejected Meta's reliance on its terms of
service, stating that it would be inappropriate to "cherry-pick"
parts of its website to conduct a summary judgment-level analysis
at the motion-to-dismiss stage. For now, she will consider the BIPA
claims under Illinois law but noted that the question of which
state law governs the case remains unresolved and will be
determined as the case progresses.
This decision allows the lawsuit to proceed under Illinois law,
pending further developments. [GN]
MID-FLORIDA PATHOLOGY: Hearing on Collective Status Set for Nov. 18
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN FERRY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. MID-FLORIDA
PATHOLOGY, LLC., STRATEGIC BUSINESS OUTSOURCING, LLC. and OLEKSANDR
ONUSHKO, Case No. 5:23-cv-00327-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Philip Lammens entered an order that:
1. The Court approves as to form and content the Notification
Letter and the Claim and Consent to Join Form for
distribution
to the potential Class Members. The Plaintiff shall include
the
date of the final hearing in the Notification Letter.
2. Counsel for the Plaintiff shall promptly file with the Court
any
consent forms or objections he receives. Such documents shall
be
filed no later than Nov. 1, 2024.
3. The parties shall have up to and including Nov. 8, 2024, to
file
a joint motion for final certification and approval of the
settlement.
4. The final hearing to certify the collective action and
approve
the settlement is set for Monday, Nov. 18, 2024, at 10:00
a.m.
before the undersigned at the Golden-Collum Memorial Federal
Building and United States Courthouse, 207 Northwest Second
Street, Courtroom 1A, Ocala, Florida, 34475. Counsel shall
appear in person and telephonic appearances will not be
permitted.
In accordance with the Court's Order, Plaintiff filed the instant
Notice with the revised documents attached. (Doc. 57). Upon review,
the Court approves the revised Settlement Agreement (Doc. 57-2) and
revised Notification Letter (Doc. 57-1), so long as the date of the
final hearing is added to the documents.
On Aug. 28, 2024, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for
conditional class certification, certified a collective action
Class, and authorized the parties to provide notice to the Class.
Mid-Florida offers a comprehensive range of pathology services
including breast, and dermatopathology.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UocAzL at no extra
charge.[CC]
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Seeks to Hold Renewed Class Cert Bid in Abeyance
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodney Sinclair et al., v.
Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04528-LTS-GWG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order holding
Plaintiff's second renewed motion for class certification in
abeyance until after the Court has resolved the threshold issue of
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
claims.
The Campaign asked Plaintiff's counsel for their position, and they
stated that they "oppose Defendant's request because Plaintiff
believes the issues can be decided in tandem in a single order."
The 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg, a businessman
and former mayor of New York City, began when he filed a statement
of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission for the office of
President of the United States as a member of the Democratic Party
on November 21, 2019.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ucklcT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Eleven Times Square
New York, NY 10036-8299
Telephone: (212) 969-3410
Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com
MISS KITTY'S: Plaintiffs Fail to Identify Potential Class Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that
lawyers anxious to notify exotic dancers about a class action wage
claim against Miss Kitty's club in Washington Park can't find them
and the club claims it can't help.
Its counsel Mark Peebles of Belleville recommended on Sept. 18 that
they check other clubs.
"The dancers who rent stage time at the club are a transient
group," Peebles wrote.
"If they are able to provide proof of legal age and pay a stage
rental fee, they are able to dance and accept tips from patrons who
attend the club for entertainment.
"They have never been employees of the club.
"The dancers can most accurately be compared to hair stylists at a
salon who rent space to earn money for haircuts.
"The names provided are usually stage names."
Former dancer Isis Jones sued Miss Kitty's last year, claiming it
classified employees as contractors in violation of the state's
wage collection and minimum wage laws.
Her counsel Athena Herman of Peoria claimed Miss Kitty's took a
kickback by charging performers $40 per day shift and $50 per night
shift for stage rental.
She claimed Miss Kitty's commonly failed to pay for hours worked.
She asserted entitlement to recovery of wages plus damages and
other relief.
She claimed the class period for wage collection violations started
in 2013 and the period for minimum wage violations started in 2020,
with both periods ending at final judgment.
She moved for class certification in January and Peebles didn't
respond.
Herman moved to certify the class in February, claiming Peebles
didn't attempt to contact her or the court to request additional
time.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Beatty granted certification in June,
concluding that Peebles essentially consented to it.
Herman moved for sanctions on Aug. 12, claiming Miss Kitty's
destroyed information that would have identified class members.
At a hearing on Aug. 15, Beatty encouraged Peebles to determine
what information was available so the court could determine the
best method for dissemination of the class notice.
He reminded Peebles of his deadline to respond to the motion for
sanctions.
Peebles didn't respond and on Sept. 4 Beatty gave him two weeks to
respond to the motion and explain why he didn't respond on time.
He resolved both problems in a page and a half.
He wrote that he mistakenly believed the response time was 21 days
and not 14 days.
He wrote that the failure was in no way the fault of Miss Kitty's
and he took full responsibility.
He wrote that Miss Kitty's produced eight names, phone numbers, and
identification cards.
He wrote that Miss Kitty's provided two sign up sheets containing
29 names presumed to be stage names of dancers on Sept. 13 and
Sept. 14.
He wrote that Miss Kitty's didn't purposely destroy any materials
which would aid Jones in identifying potential class members.
He wrote that Gail Allen took over operations at Miss Kitty's in
2022. Her deceased son managed the club and removed all records
after he left.
He wrote that some dancers who rent stage time at Miss Kitty's
dance at other clubs. Some dance once or twice at Miss Kitty's and
move on.
He wrote that some come to the club to earn money for a big
purchase or pay off a bill.
"Those individuals come and go," he wrote.
"The club does not keep records of everyone who rents stage time.
"Perhaps the best method to discover if there are in fact persons
who would be potential class members is to post a notice for
dancers to see at the various clubs and invite them to respond to
plaintiff's counsel if they danced at Miss Kitty's during the
relevant time."
He wrote that Miss Kitty's manager was available for deposition at
any convenient time.
Beatty has set a conference Oct. 3. [GN]
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Seeks to Seal Documents in Wallenstein
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WALLENSTEIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Virginia corporation, MONDELEZ
GLOBAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and NABISCO,
INC., a New Jersey corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-06033-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order sealing the
documents attached to the supporting declaration.
-- The materials sought to be sealed include sales data, product
formulations, internal marketing research, and internal
business
strategy.
-- Sales data is indisputably information that could provide an
advantage to other manufacturers of competitor products.
Similarly, some of the materials at issue include information
about the formula (i.e., recipe) for Wheat Thins, the
disclosure
of which would be harmful to the Defendants.
-- Along the same vein, the Defendants have invested in market
research and consumer studies in order to develop a marketing
strategy for their products.
-- Allowing competitors to access to that information through the
filings in this case would provide them with a competitive
advantage and create a significant competitive injury to the
Defendants.
On May 24, 2024, the plaintiff filed his motion for class
certification. The Defendants filed their opposition on July 13,
2024, and the plaintiff filed a reply on Aug. 9, 2024.
In connection with each of these briefs, the parties submitted
briefing and evidence that were subject to requests to seal.
Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding,
beverage and snack food company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6KqxqV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark C. Goodman, Esq.
Nancy Sims, Esq.
BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 576-3000
Facsimile: (415) 576-3099
E-mail: mark.goodman@bakermckenzie.com
nancy.sims@bakermckenzie.com
MONGODB INC: Faces Baxter Shareholder Action
---------------------------------------------
MongoDB, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 30, 2024, that on July 9, 2024, a putative
class action lawsuit, captioned "Baxter v. MongoDB, Inc., et al.,"
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against MongoDB, CEO Dev Ittycheria, and CFO
Michael Gordon.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act, and alleges that defendants made material
misstatements and/or omissions, including regarding MongoDB’s
sales strategy and its financial results. The complaint is
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired MongoDB common stock between August
31, 2023 and May 30, 2024. It seeks unspecified monetary damages,
costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief.
MongoDB, Inc. is a developer data platform company that enables
developers to build and modernize applications rapidly and
cost-effectively across a broad range of use cases. It also
provides post-contract support, training and consulting services
for its offerings.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Witt Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Robert H. Witt, III, Brooke M. Witt, and
others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, DOES 1-50, Case No.
5:24-cv-00903 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Sept. 23, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-06662-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. W. Keller, Esq.
Henry Dalton, Esq.
KELLER KELLER & DALTON
201 Robert S. Kerr, Suite 1001
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 235-6693
Fax: (405) 232-3301
Email: kkd.law@coxinet.net
NAPCO SECURITY: Faces Zornberg Securities Suit in EDNY
------------------------------------------------------
NAPCO Security Technologies, 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 August 29, 2023, a
purported class action, brought on behalf of a putative class who
acquired publicly traded NAPCO securities between November 7, 2022
and August 18, 2023, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, its
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial
Officer.
The action, captioned "Zornberg v. Napco Security Technologies,
Inc. et al.," asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
statements made in the Company’s quarterly reports and earnings
releases during the period of November 7, 2022 through May 8, 2023.
A lead plaintiff was appointed in November 2023 and an amended
complaint was filed on February 16, 2024. The company filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 26, 2024.
Napco Security Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer and designer of
high-tech electronic security devices, cellular communication
services for intrusion and fire alarm systems as well as a leading
provider of school safety solutions.
NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Mackey Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nature's Sunshine
Prods., Inc. The case is styled as Hunter Mackey, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nature's Sunshine
Prods., Inc., Case No. CACE24013673 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty.,
Sept. 23, 2024).
Nature's Sunshine Products -- https://shop.naturessunshine.com/ --
manufactures and markets tablets and encapsulated herbal products,
high-quality natural vitamins, food supplements, skin care and
other complementary products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
NC ACCIDENT: Saunders Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
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-07085 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18,
2024) is a civil action against Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
www.elevatesohocannabis.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when attempting to access Defendant's
website around August 11, 2024, from his home in Bronx County, in
an effort to search for and purchase Defendant's products and
services, including their premium edible cannabis, but encountered
various access barriers that denied him full and equal access to
Defendant's online goods, content, and services.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
NC Accident Reports LLC, d/b/a Elevate Soho Cannabis, is a New York
State-licensed cannabis dispensary.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
NEW FORTRESS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your New Fortress Energy Inc.
(NASDAQ:NFE) investment and want to learn about a potential
recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below
for more information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/new-fortress-energy-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=103986&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
New Fortress Energy Inc. that seeks to recover losses of
shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between February 29, 2024 and August 8, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleged that defendants created
the false impression that they possessed reliable information
pertaining to the Company's projected revenue outlook and
anticipated growth while simultaneously minimizing the risk
involved in New Fortress' plan to have its Fast Liquefied Natural
Gas ("LNG") projects fully operational and to increase business
growth globally. In reality, New Fortress' Fast LNG projects failed
to fulfill the Company's public statements that its FLNG 1 project
would be in service by March 2024. Even following the announcement
that these delays were costing the Company upwards of $150 million
per quarter, defendants continued to tout the speed at which New
Fortress was building facilities. Defendants misled investors by
providing the public with materially flawed statements of
confidence and growth projections that did not account for these
variables.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in New Fortress stock during
the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go
to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/new-fortress-energy-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=103986&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Narrows Claims in G.K. Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.K., by their next
friend, Katherine Cooper et al. 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 in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, and
-- denying the Defendants' motion to disqualify the plaintiffs'
next
friends.
B.D. may remain as a plaintiff and advance each of the putative
class claims, but G.K., C.I., T.L., R.K., and D.M. are dismissed
from the action. The case caption shall be amended accordingly.
But here, because B.D. can advance each of the plaintiffs' claims
on behalf of the class, the class claims remain viable regardless
of whether the inherently transitory exception applies.
Because there is no need to invoke the inherently transitory
exception, I decline to consider whether it applies and dismiss
G.K., C.I., T.L., R.K., and D.M. from the case.
In January 2021, four adolescent foster children, G.K., C.I., T.L.,
and R.K., filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of similarly situated individuals seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief for alleged deficiencies in New Hampshire's
operation of its foster care program.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Py154W at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Judge OKs Class-Action Status for Foster Care Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
News Center Maine reports a federal judge has approved class-action
status for a lawsuit challenging the placement of teens with mental
health disabilities in New Hampshire's foster care system.
The lawsuit was filed against the state in 2021 and it has been
amended since then. It says New Hampshire has "unnecessarily
warehoused" foster care teens in institutional and group home care
settings instead of with families, against their best interests.
The state requested a dismissal, saying the plaintiffs did not
prove their case.
Efforts at mediation failed earlier this year.
U.S. District Judge Paul Barbadaro's ruling Wednesday, Sept. 18,
applies to children ages 14 through 17 who are or will be under
supervision of the state Division for Children, Youth and Families,
have a mental impairment and are at serious risk of being
unnecessarily placed in a group care setting. The ruling says fewer
than 200 teens could be affected.
The original plaintiffs have since aged out of custody, and
Barbadaro, in Concord, dismissed their claims.
He allowed one to proceed involving a 15-year-old in a group home
who alleges disability discrimination and case planning neglect.
Lawyers for the state argued that neither claim is appropriate for
a class-action resolution.
Barbadro noted since the lawsuit was first filed, the defendants
"have undertaken laudable efforts to address many of the concerns
raised in the complaint. But there is no evidence that the
defendants have abated or modified the common practices identified
in this order."
The lawsuit was filed against Gov. Chris Sununu and heads of the
Health Department, Division for Children, Youth, and Families;
Medicaid services; and the administrative office of the courts.
[GN]
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Can File Opposition Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hall-Landers v. New York
University, Case No. 1:20-cv-03250-GBD-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Sarah Cave entered an order granting the Defendant's request
to file portions of opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and certain accompanying documents under seal.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close ECF No. 133.
New York University is a private institution that was founded in
1831.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cvxL8I at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Keara M. Gordon, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10020-1104
Telephone: (212) 335-4632
Facsimile: (212) 884-8632
E-mail: keara.gordon@dlapiper.com
NORTHWOOD UNIVERSITY: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. NORTHWOOD UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:24-cv-07198
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 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") and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA")
prohibiting discrimination against the blind.
Because Defendant's interactive website, https://northwood.edu,
including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but
not limited to, https://gonorthwood.com/,
https://northwoodgear.merchorders.com/, and
https://www.gonorthwood.com/landing/index (collectively the
"Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA and the
RA. 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 his
computer.
NORTHWOOD UNIVERSITY, operates the Northwood online interactive
Website and retail store across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
NOVANT HEALTH: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Corley Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH CORLEY, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NOVANT HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00772
(M.D.N.C., Sept. 19, 2024) is a collective action to recover
overtime wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
pursuant to the state laws of North Carolina to recover unpaid
straight time wages and other applicable penalties.
Although the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members
have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours
per workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class
Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their
regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. Likewise, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class
Members who worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion were not
fully compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked, the suit says.
Novant's regular practice -- including during weeks when the
Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked in
excess of 40 hours (not counting hours worked "off-the-clock") --
was (and is) to employ an improper and non-neutral time rounding
policy that, over time, fails to compensate the Plaintiff and
Putative Collective/Class Members for all the time they have
actually worked, alleges the suit.
Plaintiff Corley was employed by Novant in Kernersville, North
Carolina from 2005 until October 2022.
Novant operates several healthcare facilities providing healthcare
services to its patients throughout the State of North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Wall, Esq.
HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC
301 N. Elm St., Suite 800
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 273-1600
Facsimile: (336) 273-4650
E-mail: jwall@greensborolaw.com
- and -
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 North Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: carter@a2xlaw.com
clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
NYC HARLEM: Final Confirmation on Provisional Class Cert Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARISOL MEDINA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NYC
HARLEM FOODS INC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01321-VSB (S.D.N.Y.),
the Parties will move the Court on Oct. 4, 2024, for an order
granting the following relief:
1. Confirm as final the Court's provisional certification
pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), for settlement
purposes,
of the Class (as defined in the accompanying memorandum of
law).
2. Grant final approval of the Parties' settlement.
3. Confirm as final the Court's preliminary approval of the
releases of claims set forth in the Agreement and the
Individual
Release.
4. Confirm as final the appointment of Marisol Medina as class
representative.
5. Confirm as final the appointment of Bouklas Gaylord LLP as
Class
Counsel.
6. Confirm as final the Court's approval of the form and manner
of
notice issued to Class Members.
The factual and legal bases for this Motion are contained in the
accompanying memorandum of law.
The Defendants include BRONX 163 FOODS INC., BRONX MARKET FOODS
INC, NYC 143 FOODS INC, NYC 96 FOODS INC, NYC 89 FOODS INC, NYC
PARK FOODS INC, NYC 125 FOODS INC, NYC 159 FOODS INC, NYC 155 FOODS
INC, SUNNYSIDE BK QSR INC, NYC 116 BK QSR INC, NYC 116 FOODS INC,
NYC 121 FOODS INC, NYC 114 FOODS INC, BRONX PROSPECT FOODS INC.,
NYC 145 FOODS INC., NYC LENOX FOODS INC., NYC 178 FOODS INC., BRONX
138 FOODS INC., RV EASTCHESTER FOODS INC., NYC 148 FOODS INC., NYC
LEXINGTON FOODS INC., NYC 161 FOODS INC., BRONX 170 FOODS INC.,
ANDHRA FOODS INC., SOMYA FOODS, INC., RVN FOODS INC., and SRINIVASA
RAO TUMMALAPENTA, individually.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XXBgBo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Gaylord, Esq
BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
357 Veterans Memorial Highway
Commack, NY 11725
The Defendants are represented by:
John Byrne, Esq.
MILBER MAKRIS PLOUSADIS & SEIDEN,
LLP
1000 Woodbury Road
Woodbury, NY 11797
OHIO DEW: B.H. Sues Over Educational Harm and Denial
----------------------------------------------------
B.H. and K.H, individually and on behalf of d.h., a minor, and all
others similarly situated v. The Ohio Department of Education and
Workforce ("DEW"); and Stephen Dackin, in his official capacity as
Director of the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce; Case
No. 2:24-cv-03966-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 23, 2024), is brought
because the Defendants, the state educational agency ("SEA")
responsible for ensuring the implementation of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") in Ohio, has failed to provide
students who are placed at the Warren County Educational Service
Center ("WCESC") and their parents with the procedural safeguards
and due process rights they are entitled to under IDEA, resulting
in substantial educational harm and the denial of a free and
appropriate public education ("FAPE") to individual Plaintiff D.H.
and the class of students with disabilities placed at WCESC.
D.H. is one student among approximately 525 students with
disabilities who were placed by their public-school districts at
WCESC educational programs and who were the subject of a systemic
state complaint, CP# 0098-2022, filed on May 31, 2022, by
Disability Rights Ohio ("DRO") with DEW's Office for Exceptional
Children ("OEC"). The complaint alleged a variety of violations of
IDEA by WCESC and the school districts, including but not limited
to a failure to provide access to academic curriculum, failure to
implement individualized education programs (IEPs), and failure to
provide appropriate behavioral interventions, that resulted in the
denial of FAPE to the students.
The OEC completed its investigation of the complaint by reviewing a
sample of 203 students and conducting on-site visits, among other
activities, and determined that violations of IDEA did occur that
resulted in FAPE denials for students. OEC issued separate letters
of findings and specific corrective action to WCESC and each school
district, including significant
After receiving pressure from WCESC and a small number of the
school districts involved, members of senior leadership at DEW took
control of the adjudication of the claim from the OEC and "paused"
all corrective action for every school district and WCESC for an
entire year. This action ignored DEW's obligations under IDEA to
promptly correct IDEA violations and ensure procedural safeguards
for students with disabilities and their parents. compensatory
education awards for many of the students in the sample
The parents and students involved in the complaint were never
notified that IDEA violations had occurred, that their child had
been denied FAPE, that compensatory education was awarded to their
student, or that a reconsideration was taking place to recalculate
and revise what services were owed to their child for them to
receive FAPE.
The Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that DEW and its director
have violated IDEA by denying parents and students the procedural
safeguards they are entitled to and failing to implement an
effective state complaint process, causing substantial educational
harm for D.H. and the class of students at WCESC, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff D.H. is a thirteen-year-old child who is diagnosed
with autism, and who resides with his mother and father in the City
of Maineville, Warren County, Ohio.
DEW is responsible for the general supervision, including
monitoring and enforcement, of IDEA in Ohio and is required to
ensure effective implementation of procedural safeguards for
students with disabilities and their parents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paige Peal, Esq.
Kristin Hildebrant, Esq.
OHIO DISABILITY RIGHTS LAW AND POLICY CENTER, INC.
Disability Rights Ohio
200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 300
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 466-7264
Fax: (614) 644-1888
Email: ppeal@disabilityrightsohio.org
khildebrant@disabilityrightsohio.org
- and -
Michael Boyle, Esq.
MEYER WILSON
305 W. Nationwide Blvd.
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: 614-224-6000
Email: mboyle@meyerwilson.com
OKTA INC: $60MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 8
------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
IN RE OKTA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
CASE NO. 3:22-cv-02990-SI
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All persons and entities who or which, during the period from
March 3, 2022 through August 31, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded Class
A common stock of Okta, Inc. and were damaged thereby (the
"Class").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that Court-appointed Class
Representatives Nebraska Investment Council and North Carolina
Retirement Systems, on behalf of themselves and the other members
of the certified Class; and (b) defendants Okta, Inc., Todd
McKinnon, Brett Tighe, and Frederic Kerrest (collectively,
"Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in
the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of
$60,000,000 (the "Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Susan Illston on
November 8, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. (Pacific), Phillip Burton Federal
Building & United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
Francisco, California 94102, in Courtroom 1-17th Floor, by Zoom
webinar (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things,
determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed
Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the
Action as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement,
dated June 11, 2024; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation
for distribution of the settlement funds available for distribution
to eligible Class Members (the "Net Settlement Fund"); and (iv)
approve Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may
change the Settlement Hearing details without providing another
notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive
a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice and Claim Form, you
may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website for
the Settlement, www.OktaSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting
the Claims Administrator at:
Okta, Inc. Securities Litigation
P.O. Box 2738
Portland, OR 97208
www.OktaSecuritiesLitigation.com
(888) 622-9621
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class
Counsel:
Michael P. Canty Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com
(888) 219-6877
If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or submitted online no later than October 29, 2024.
If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all
judgments and orders entered by the Court relating to the
Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that
it is received no later than October 18, 2024. If you properly
exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the
Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than
October 18, 2024.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
DATED: AUGUST 13, 2024
OKTA INC: Final Hearing on Settlement Approval Set for Nov. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
Okta, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 31, 2023, that on July 19, 2024, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
granted preliminary approval of a stipulation, ordered that notice
be disseminated to the settlement class, and set a final settlement
approval hearing for November 8, 2024.
This is with regards to a May 20, 2022 purported shareholder filed
a putative class action lawsuit in said court against the company
and certain of its executive officers, captioned "In re Okta, Inc.
Securities Litigation," No. 3:22-cv-02990 where on May 28, 2024,
the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, subject to
court approval.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the defendants made
false or misleading statements or omissions concerning the
company's cybersecurity controls, vulnerability to data breaches,
and its integration of Auth0, Inc. The lawsuit seeks an order
certifying the lawsuit as a class action and unspecified damages.
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
On March 31, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed in full
the claims based on the plaintiff's allegations related to the
company's cybersecurity controls and vulnerability to data
breaches, and dismissed in part and denied in part the claims based
on allegations related to the “Auth0” integration. Discovery is
proceeding with respect to the issues remaining in the case.
On February 5, 2024, the court granted the plaintiffs’ unopposed
motion for class certification.
Okta, Inc. is software company out of San Francisco, California and
is an independent identity partner that operates “Workforce
Identity” and “Customer Identity Clouds to” securely and
efficiently embed identity into the software they build.
ONE SOURCE: Class Action Settlement in Burak Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Burak C. Bingollu, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. One Source
Technology, LLC d/b/a Asurint, Case No. 0:22-cv-00077-DTS (D.
Minn.),
the Hon. Judge David Schultz entered an order that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action
settlement
is granted;
2. Final certification of the settlement class is granted;
3. Plaintiff's Motion for award of attorneys' fees, costs, and
class representative award is granted;
4. Class counsel are awarded $816,969.63 in fees and costs;
5. Class representative Burak C. Bingollu is awarded a service
award of $5,000; 6. Final approval of the methods and forms
of
notice provided to class members is granted; and
7. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the subject matter
and
the parties with respect to the interpretation and
implementation
of the settlement agreement for all purposes.
The Plaintiff brought this class action in 2022, alleging that the
Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
The settlement class is defined as follows:
"All individuals who were the subject of consumer reports
prepared by Defendant from Dec. 27, 2019 to May 1, 2023 about
whom the Defendant reported: (1) through the SSN Trace Level 2
product, "unable to validate" and/or "not verified"; or (2)
individuals who disputed information in the SSN Trace section
of
their background reports, which was then revised."
On April 4, 2024, this Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the proposed class action settlement.
On Sept. 11, 2024, a final fairness hearing was held. No class
members appeared at the final fairness hearing.
Asurint provides background screening services, including, pre- and
post-hire searches and workforce monitoring.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S6SaJ0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ORACLE CORP: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $115-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tech behemoth Oracle has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit
for $115 million over allegations that it tracked consumer activity
both on and offline.
The suit alleges Oracle captured, compiled, and sold individuals'
data to third parties without their consent. Oracle maintains its
practices were lawful, that it disclosed its activities, and it
admitted no wrongdoing.
Under the class action settlement, Oracle will pay $115 million to
establish a settlement fund, and anyone residing in the United
States from August 19, 2018 to the present who was affected may be
eligible to file a claim. The fund will also cover up to $28.75
million for attorneys fees and other costs. All valid claimants
will receive the same amount of money, which is dependent on how
many people file.
If you browsed the web, used geolocation services, or made in-store
purchases electronically during the six-year period addressed in
the settlement, you may be eligible. Allegedly, Oracle Advertising
improperly collected personal data from these activities and
subsequently sold or made that data available to third parties. The
company allegedly did so using Oracle Advertising products
including ID Graph and Data Marketplace.
"All natural persons residing in the United States whose personal
information, or data derived from their personal information, was
acquired, captured, or otherwise collected by Oracle Advertising
technologies or made available for use or sale by or through ID
Graph, Data Marketplace, or any other Oracle Advertising product or
service from August 19, 2018 to the date of final judgment in the
Action" are eligible, according to the settlement website.
The court will decide whether to approve the proposed settlement at
a hearing on November 14, 2024.
Claims may be filed online on the official settlement website or by
mail. Claims must be filed by October 17, 2024.
Shares of Oracle Corp, based in Austin, Texas, rose slightly on
Friday September 13. [GN]
PARETO EFFICIENT: Walther Seeks to Certify ESOP Participant Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martha Walther, Trent
Kumfer, Jayme Lea, Megan Kelsey, Dave Lowe, Carol Whisler, and
Michele Porter, as representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the 80/20, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, v. John Wood, Brian Eagle, Patrick Buesching, Patrice Mauk,
Rodney Strack, MPE Partners II, L.P, and MPE Partners III, L.P.,
and Pareto Efficient Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00294-GSL-SLC
(N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to
certify the following proposed class in this action (or such other
class(es) as the Court may determine to be appropriate) under Rule
23(a) and (b)(1), (b)(2), and/or (b)(3):
"All ESOP participants at the time of its termination who
received
a benefit, and their beneficiaries or alternate payees of
record,
excluding Defendants Patrick Buesching, Patrick Mauk, and
Rodney
Strack."
In addition, Plaintiffs move to appoint the Plaintiffs as class
representatives for the class, and Plaintiffs' counsel as class
counsel under Rule 23(g).
This motion is made based on this Motion, the accompanying
Memorandum in Support, Declaration of Charles C. Gokey and the
accompanying exhibits, Declaration of Dana Messina and the
accompanying exhibits, Declaration of Martha Walther, Declaration
of Trent Kumfer, Declaration of Jayme Lea, Declaration of Megan
Kelsey, Declaration of Dave Lower, Declaration of Carol Whisler,
and Declaration of Michele Porter, and all other papers, pleadings,
documents, arguments of counsel, and materials presented before or
during the hearing on this motion, or any other evidence or
argument the Court may consider.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Ite5U at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charlie C. Gokey, Esq.
Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE LLC
323 Washington Ave. N., Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-8349
E-mail: cgokey@engstromlee.com
jlee@engstromlee.com
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
PARETO EFFICIENT: Walther Suit Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martha Walther, Trent
Kumfer, and Jayme Lea, Megan Kelsey, Dave Lowe, Carol Whisler, and
Michele Porter, as representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the 80/20, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, v. John Wood, Brian Eagle, Patrick Buesching, Patrice Mauk,
Rodney Strack, MPE Partners II, L.P, and MPE Partners III, L.P.,
and Pareto Efficient Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00294-GSL-SLC
(N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to seal
the documents submitted in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
These documents are listed below:
a. Exhibit 7: MPE8020_00147343
b. Exhibit 8: MPE8020_ 00053217
c. Exhibit 9: MPE8020_00012687
d. Exhibit 10: MPE8020_00032748
e. Exhibit 14: MPE8020_00173847
f. Exhibit 21: MPE8020_00019488
g. Exhibit 27: EAGLE8020_027115
h. Exhibit 28: EAGLE8020_027156
The Plaintiffs further seek to file and maintain under seal
documents attached as exhibits to the Declaration of Charlie C.
Gokey that were produced by third parties in response to subpoenas,
which those third parties designated as Confidential under the
Stipulated Protective Order. Plaintiffs again seek to file these
documents under seal to comply with their obligations under the
Stipulated Protective Order.
These documents are as follows:
a. Exhibit 4: BARRETT_002549
b. Exhibit 5: LCB_000383
c. Exhibit 6: LCB_001094
d. Exhibit 11: LCB_000974
e. Exhibit 12: TRUE NORTH_000341
Finally, the Plaintiffs seek to file their Memorandum in Support of
their Motion for Class Certification and the Preliminary Expert
Report of Dana Messina under seal because both quote from and
summarize documents designated as Confidential by Defendants and
third parties under the Protective Order. Should the Court wish
Plaintiffs to do so, Plaintiffs will file redacted versions of
these documents on the public docket that remove references to
materials the Court ultimately deems to meet the legal standard for
sealing.
On Nov. 14, 2023, the Court entered a stipulated protective order
in this action.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i4xZDq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charlie C. Gokey, Esq.
Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE LLC
323 Washington Ave. N., Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: 612-305-8349
E-mail: cgokey@engstromlee.com
jlee@engstromlee.com
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nelson Due Jan. 15, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY NELSON, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. PENSKE LOGISTICS LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-02756-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order regarding modification of
scheduling order as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on
or
before Jan. 15, 2025.
2. Defendant's Opposition shall be filed on or before April 15,
2025.
3. The Plaintiff's Reply shall be filed on or before May 15,
2025.
4. The hearing shall be set on the Court's calendar for June
26,
2025 at 1:30 PM.
Penske provides supply chain and logistics solutions to
market-leading companies in the food, grocery, retail and beverage
industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ccDXGH at no extra
charge.[CC]
PERRY CONCRETE: Sick Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL SICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERRY CONCRETE OF VENICE, INC., and THOMAS
PERRY, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-02228 (M.D. Fla., September 20,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
full-time laborer from approximately October 1, 2023, to September
1, 2024.
Perry Concrete of Venice, Inc. is a construction contractor in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
PHARMACARE US: Sunderland Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA SUNDERLAND and
BENJAMIN BINDER individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
PHARMACARE LABORATORIES PTY LTD., an Australian company, Case No.
3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order
-- certifying under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) of the following
classes:
California Class:
"All persons in California who, before March 31, 2023,
purchased
the Elderberry Original Syrup (120 ml and 230 ml), Sambucol
Black
Elderberry Sugar Free, Sambucol Black Elderberry Syrup for
Kids,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Effervescent Tablets, Sambucol Black
Elderberry Chewable Tablets, Sambucol Black Elderberry
Pastilles,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Daily Immune Drink Powder, and
Sambucol
Black Elderberry Advanced Immune Syrup for personal or
household
use and not for resale";
New York Class:
"All persons in New York who, before March 31, 2023, purchased
the
Elderberry Original Syrup (120 ml and 230 ml), Sambucol Black
Elderberry Sugar Free, Sambucol Black Elderberry Syrup for
Kids,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Effervescent Tablets, Sambucol Black
Elderberry Chewable Tablets, Sambucol Black Elderberry
Pastilles,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Daily Immune Drink Powder, and
Sambucol
Black Elderberry Advanced Immune Syrup for personal or
household
use and not for resale."
Excluded from all of the above-defined putative classes are:
(1)
the Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a
controlling
interest, and its legal representatives, officers, directors,
employees, assigns and successors; (2) the Judge to whom this
case
is assigned and any member of the Judge’s staff or immediate
family; (3) Class Counsel.
-- appointing Plaintiff Benjamin Binder as class representative
for
the California Class and Plaintiff Linda Sunderland as class
representative for the New York Class.
-- appointing Rachel Soffin, Nick Suciu III, and Trenton R.
Kashima,
of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC as class
counsel,
pursuant to Rule 23(g).
PharmaCare is a fully licensed pharmaceutical wholesaler and
distributor.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z95FhX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
Russell Busch, Esq.
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
Martha Geer, Esq.
Luis Cardona, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 West Broadway St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 810-7047
E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com
rsoffin@milberg.com
rbusch@milberg.com
nsuciu@milberg.com
mgeer@milberg.com
lcardona@milberg.com
PRACTICE RESOURCES: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Practice Resources, LLC, Data
Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 6:22-cv-00890 (N.D.N.Y., Filed
Aug. 25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Lawrence E. Kahn entered an order
granting motion to certify class.
-- The motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement
is granted.
-- A fairness hearing for final approval of the class settlement
will
be held on Feb. 12, 2025, at 11:00 AM at the James T. Foley
U.S.
Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Albany, New York.
-- The notice of the proposed settlement and final approval
hearing
be provided to absent class members in a manner consistent with
the settlement agreement and notice plan, and in the form and
content substantially as set forth in the settlement agreement
-- The parties and their counsel adhere to the settlement
procedures
delineated in the Order titled Order Preliminarily Approving
Class
Action Settlement.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.
Practice Resources is a multispecialty practice management
company.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Appeals Remand Order in Turner Contract Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO. is taking an appeal from a
court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand the lawsuit
entitled Ronzell Turner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Progressive Specialty Insurance
Co., Defendant, Case No. 2-24-cv-00939, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, is brought against the Defendant for insurance
contract violations.
On Mar. 28, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case
to state court.
On Apr. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on May
7, 2024.
On Aug. 14, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to
remand through an Order entered by Judge John F. Murphy. The case
was remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
for further proceedings. The Defendant's motion to dismiss was
denied as moot.
The appellate case is captioned Ronzell Turner v. Progressive
Specialty Insurance Co., Case No. 24-2728, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on September 20,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee RONZELL TURNER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
SCHMIDT KRAMER
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 232-6300
- and -
John P. Goodrich, Esq.
GOODRICH & ASSOCIATES
429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 900
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 261-4663
- and -
James C. Haggerty, Esq.
HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH
1801 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 350-6633
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS
200 Barr Harbor Drive
Four Tower Bridge, Suite 400
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
Defendant-Appellant PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO. is
represented by:
Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND
1114 Avenue of the Americas
The Grace Building, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 389-5068
QUEBEC: Court OKs Class Suit Over Temporary Foreign Worker Program
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Wilson, writing for HRD, reports that Quebec's Superior Court
has given the green light to the class-action lawsuit a
Montreal-based workers' rights group filed against the federal
government's closed work permits rule under the Temporary Foreign
Worker (TFW) Program.
On Friday, September 13, Quebec Superior Court Justice Silvana
Conte gave the go signal to the case filed by the Association for
the Rights of Household and Farm Workers (DTMF).
"The court finds that at this preliminary stage, while the
threshold test is high, there is an arguable case that the
employer-tying measures are 'clearly unconstitutional' giving rise
to a claim for damages under the Charter," Conte wrote, according
to the report.
The Montreal-based workers' rights group filed an application for a
class-action case to ban closed work permits, which bind foreign
workers to a specific employer, in September 2023.
Employer-tying measures "create a striking power imbalance between
the foreign workers and their employers," according to the
association.
"If the relationship ends with the employer-sponsor (or group of
employers-sponsors), the individual's right to earn a living in
Canada is immediately revoked. Employer(s)-tied household and farm
workers are, therefore, extremely reluctant to resign or do
anything that might jeopardize their employment relationship --
including refusing unsafe work or [complaining] and [seeking]
justice in case of a right violation.
"Facing a state sanction if they are fired or resign (the immediate
revocation of their right to work in the country), employer-tied
workers are, according to the North American jurisprudence, placed
in a legal condition of servitude."
In a report released in August, Tomoya Obokata, United Nations
special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, said that the
TFW Program "serves as a breeding ground for contemporary forms of
slavery, as it institutionalizes asymmetries of power that favour
employers and prevent workers from exercising their rights."
Overall, the number of positions approved to be filled by temporary
foreign workers in 2023 stood at 239,646, more than double the
108,988 recorded in 2018, CBC previously reported, citing data from
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC).
Who is covered by the class-action lawsuit?
The DTMF class action lawsuit seeks damages for members, and a
declaration that sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations are unconstitutional, according to the CBC report.
One point of contention is the number of workers included in the
case.
The lawsuit claims members include any foreign national issued a
work permit in Canada after April 17, 1982, that was tied to a
specific employer, according to the report. That was the year
Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect.
However, lawyers for the federal government wanted to reduce the
eligibility period for prospective members of the class to workers
who received permits no earlier than 2017.
Conte noted that the final window in which class members can be
included will be decided at a later date, according to the report.
One report previously called on the Canadian government to grant
permanent resident status for foreign workers upon their arrival in
Canada. [GN]
RALLYBRANDS LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind People, Young Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. RALLYBRANDS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07149 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 20, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://drinkbiolyte.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Allegedly, Rallybrands operates the blind-inaccessible Drink
Biolyte online interactive website and retail store across the
United States. This online interactive website and retail store
constitute a place of public accommodation because it is a sales
establishment.
The Defendant's interactive website provides consumers with access
to an array of goods and services including information about
Defendant's: hydration drinks & merchandise, as well as other types
of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and
internet pricing specials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, New York 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
RED OAK SANITATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Craig Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON CRAIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RED OAK SANITATION, LLC; RED OAK SANITATION,
INC.; SHERYL LYNN LUCE; MARLON WALTER LUCE; and ANTHONY J.
GRUTADAURIO, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00212-RWS (N.D. Ga.,
Sept. 17, 2024) is a collective action for unpaid overtime wages
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Craig was employed by the Defendants as a driver.
Red Oak Sanitation, LLC provides waste management, recycling, trash
pick ups services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Daniel Cole, Esq.
Evan P. Drew, Esq.
PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
1335 Peachtree NE, Suite 2000
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 873-8000
Email: dcole@pcwlawfirm.com
edrew@pcwlawfirm.com
REDWIRE CORP: Bid for Leave to Amend Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEMEN v. REDWIRE
CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01254 (M.D. Fla., Filed Dec.
17, 2021), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an order that
the motion for leave to amend is under advisement.
-- No further briefing will be permitted unless requested (the
motion
for class certification and for leave to file a sur-sur-sur
reply
are deferred).
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Redwire is an American aerospace manufacturer and space
infrastructure technology company headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida.[CC]
RESONANT WAVES: Walkup Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICK WALKUP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RESONANT WAVES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-07167 (S.D.N.Y., September 22, 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.danvillemusic.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: ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact
information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear
labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, the
lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard
access for some interactive elements, redundant links where
adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Resonant Waves, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
RHM RESTAURANT: Dispositive Bids in Vokava Suit Due Oct. 4
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maryia Volkava, Nastassia
Plaskavitskaya, Svetlana Zaytseva, and Tamara Hernandez, v. RHM
Restaurant Corp. and Robert H. Maisano, Case No. 1:23-cv-04893-AS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order that
the deadline for dispositive motions is Oct. 4, 2024.
-- Any class certification motions in this case were originally
due
to be filed on June 14, 2024.
-- No motion was filed, and the Court requested that the parties
file
a joint letter updating the Court on the status of the case.
-- In their status report, the parties requested that the deadline
for class certification motions be extended to Sept. 16, 2024,
and
that the deadline for discovery be extended to Aug. 30, 2024.
The
Court granted these requests.
-- No motion was filed, and neither party requested any additional
time. No motion for class certification will be heard in this
case, and discovery is closed. The deadline for dispositive
motions is Oct. 4, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Op417C at no extra
charge.[CC]
RICHEMONT NORTH: Voelker Sues Over Discontinued Products' Warranty
------------------------------------------------------------------
PR.com reports that on September 17, 2024, Plaintiff, Daniel J.
Voelker, filed a Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, County Department, Chancery Division Case No. 2024 CH
08757, against Richemont North America, Inc., doing business as the
world-famous Cartier.
This case involves the alleged breach of a written, express
warranty and the violation of the consumer protection laws of 13
states including Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia.
More specifically, this case involves the alleged unlawful pattern
and deceptive practice of Cartier intentionally dishonoring the
two-year written, express warranty that it provides to consumers of
its products at the point of sale in consideration of the high
purchase price of its products when the defective Cartier product
becomes discontinued, i.e., is no longer manufactured by Cartier
for sale or where Cartier, purportedly, does not have access to
replacement parts.
Cartier is alleged to have a secret policy (the "Secret Policy"),
unknown to its customers at the time of purchase and the sale of
the particular Cartier product, that it will not honor the broad
and purportedly very valuable two-year written, express warranty it
provides at the point of sale in consideration of the high price of
the Cartier product when a warranty claim is made by a customer
during the warranty period where the defective product sold by
Cartier is no longer being manufactured for sale in its stores or
when, purportedly, no replacement parts are available for repair.
(the "Discontinued Cartier Product").
Allegedly: Under this Secret Policy, rather than repair or replace
(with a similar model) a defective Discontinued Cartier Product
free of charge as promised, Cartier will only provide the injured
customer with a credit of 30% of the amount originally paid for the
defective product towards the purchase at Cartier of a replacement
product. This requires the injured customer of the Discontinued
Cartier Product to pay out of his or her own pocket the balance of
70% of the purchase price of a similar, but apparently not,
identical replacement product.
Further, allegedly, the Secret Policy is directly contradictory to
the promises and representations set forth in the written, express
warranty that Cartier provides to its customers in order to induce
the sale of Cartier's products, namely, that Cartier will repair or
replace the defective Cartier product at no charge to the customer
for two years after the sale. The alleged Secret Policy is a breach
of the written, express warranty.
As a result of this allegedly unlawful conduct on the part of
Cartier, Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for themselves, as
well as the Multi-State Class; and, alternatively, for the
State-Wide Sub-Classes, as well as recission, disgorgement of
profits, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees,
interest and costs.
In the Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs also seek a Court Order
mandating that Cartier remove the Discontinued Cartier Products
from its inventory, shelves and the display cabinets in its stores
and boutiques throughout the United States such that consumers and
its customers are no longer allegedly deceived due to its deceptive
conduct and false promises and representations.
If you have any information regarding these allegations, please
feel free to contact Daniel J. Voelker, Esq. of Voelker Litigation
Group, 33 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 1000, Chicago, Illinois 60201,
312.505.4841, or dvoelker@voelkerlitigationgroup.com.
This press release is issued by Daniel J. Voelker.
Contact
Voelker Litigation Group
Daniel J Voelker
(312) 505-4841
voelkerlitigationgroup.com [GN]
RIVERSBORNE REALTY: Arias Suit Asserts Illegal Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBINSON ARIAS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RIVERSBORNE REALTY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-013189 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., September
16, 2024) is a lawsuit against the Defendant for violation of the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic
communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a
consumer debt. The electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the Plaintiff's time
zone. The Defendant did not have the Plaintiff's consent to
communicate with him between the said hours. As such, by and
through the electronic communication, the Defendant violated the
FCCPA, asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.
Riversborne Realty LLC is a limited liability company with its
principal place of business located in Weston, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Faaris K. Uddin, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
faaris@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
ROBLOX CORP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Gambling-Based Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McGinn, writing for National Law Review, reports that Roblox's
most recent motion to dismiss the gambling-based class-action
complaint brought by parents, guardians, and minor-aged users of
its program succeeded in part, as the state-law fraud claims and
the request for injunctive relief were inadequately pled and
dismissed without leave to amend. However, the class claim based on
negligence and the request for monetary relief survived the motion
to dismiss stage.
Going forward, the case will likely be decided based on how the
standard of reasonable care is applied. The Court noted that in
social media-based cases, the operation of the platforms was
treated as conduct and standard negligence law applied. However,
should the virtual world created and managed by Roblox be viewed in
either a product liability light, or treated similarly to physical
land with a heightened standard to keep the land safe and warn of
dangers, Roblox could face a more difficult challenge in escaping
liability.
The motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the fraud-based
state law claims (Counts 3-8) and the request for injunctive
relief. The motion to dismiss is denied with respect to the
negligence claims and the request for monetary relief. [GN]
RODCO REDDING LP: Taylor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rodco Redding, LP.,
et al. The case is styled as Marcus Taylor, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Rodco Redding, LP., Does 1-50,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC24618334 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Sept. 23, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Rodco Redding, LP is a California Limited Partnership.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
Phone: 310-975-1493
Fax: 310-675-0861
Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
RUSHMORE LOAN: Court Narrows Claims in Contee Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH L. CONTEE, v. On
his behalf and on behalf of three Classes of similarly situated
persons RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC And U.S. BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS
TRUSTEE FOR RMTP TRUST, SERIES 2021 BKM-TT, Case No.
8:23-cv-00588-BAH (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Brendan Hurson entered
an order denying in part and granting in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.
The Court finds that Contee plausibly alleges that the vague
"recoverable corporate advances" line item was materially
misleading as to the character and status of his debt.
Thus, the Court finds that Contee has plausibly alleged that, from
the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, Rushmore's
practices related to the charging of generic corporate advances are
misleading or deceptive.
The Plaintiff, on his own and on behalf of three classes of
similarly situated persons, brought suit against the Defendants,
alleging violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection
Practices Act ("MCDCA"), the Maryland Consumer Protection Act
("MCPA"), and the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
On Jan. 31, 2018, Wells Fargo initiated foreclosure proceedings
against Contee after he experienced a reduction in household income
and subsequently fell behind on his mortgage payments.
Rushmore is a multi-faceted residential mortgage servicer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RuwWL2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Davenport Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL DAVENPORT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-02214
(M.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation for the Plaintiff and his similarly situated
colleagues who have worked as exempt Assistant Store Managers, and
similarly situated positions holding different titles as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit alleges that the Defendant classifies their ASMs as exempt
from overtime pay requirements under the FLSA. The Defendant's
policy and practice directly contravenes the requirements of the
FLSA because the Plaintiff and similarly situated ASMs primary job
duties are non-exempt, including answering customer phone calls,
assisting walk-in customers, attending meetings, and following the
Defendant's procedures for opening and closing the Store, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff and ASMs routinely work more than 40 hours in
workweeks and are typically expected to work between 50 and 60
hours per workweek.
Mr. Davenport is an adult individual who was employed by the
Defendant as an Assistant Store Manager in Brooksville, Florida
from 2018 to May 17, 2024.
The Defendant offers vehicle glass repair and replacement services
in all 50 states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brien V. Squires, Esq.
SQUIRES & RYAN, PLLC
100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 600
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 922-2803
E-mail: brien@squiresryan.com
SANDISK SSDS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 15, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Sandisk SSDS Litigation, Case No.
3:23-cv-04152-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an
order granting the Parties' stipulation:
1. The close of fact discovery will be extended from Oct. 30,
2024,
to Jan. 31, 2025.
2. The Plaintiffs' designation of experts will be due by March
14,
2025.
3. The Defendants' designation of experts will be due by April
18,
2025.
4. Rebuttal Reports will be due by May 23, 2025.
5. Expert discovery completed by June 20, 2025.
6. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the
parties'
Daubert motions will be due by July 15, 2025.
7. The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class
certification and Daubert opposition briefs will be due by
Aug. 26, 2025.
8. The Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Daubert reply
briefs will be due by Sept. 16, 2025.
9. Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
Daubert motions set for Sept. 30, 2025, at 10a.m./p.m.
10. The Case Management Conference is moved from Oct. 9, 2024, to
Dec. 11, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XYtEJT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
Luke Sironski-White, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd, Ste 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
sbogdanovich@bursor.com
lsironski@bursor.com
- and -
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
Brett L. Burgs, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, Floor 15
Stamford, Connecticut 06901
Telephone: (203) 425-4491
E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com
jseredynski@sgtlaw.com
bburgs@sgtlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph L. Kish, Esq.
Matthew D. Kelly, Esq.
SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY,
LTD.
233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5500
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 545-7800
E-mail: jkish@smsm.com
mkelly@smsm.com
SARATOGA HOSPITAL: Mismanages Retirement Fund, Duguay Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL DUGUAY; PATRICIA PRICE; ELIZABETH BALDWIN; and SARA MORIZIO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SARATOGA HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01125-AMN-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2024) alleges violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant failed
to meet its fiduciary obligations in basic ways. The Plan offered
and maintained higher cost share classes when lower cost share
classes of the same mutual funds were available. This resulted in
the participants paying additional unnecessary operating expenses
with no value to the participants and resulting in a loss of
compounded returns.
The Defendant wasted participants' money by failing to implement a
prudent methodology to appropriately select and monitor the stable
value of the Retirement Plan of Saratoga Hospital (the "Plan").
Substantially similar products were available from other providers
that would have provided far higher, guaranteed returns to the Plan
participants. Had Defendant monitored and evaluated the returns on
the Plan's stable value fund, it would have realized that the
Plan's stable value fund was an underperforming fund throughout the
entire Class Period and that the Plan's parties in interest were
benefitting from the returns on the stable value fund, at the cost
of the Plan's participants, says the suit.
Saratoga Care, Inc. provides medical and surgical hospital
services. The Hospital offers cardiology, dermatology, family
medicine, neurology, pathology, pain management, plastic surgery,
radiology, neurology, dermatology, and urgent care services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
Ankita Sangwan, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
sjadams@pomlaw.com
asangwan@pomlaw.com
SAVOR BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind People, Raheel Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
AISHA RAHEEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Savor Beauty, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-06667 (E.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 22, 2024) alleges that Savor Beauty failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.savorbeauty.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The website provides to the public a wide array of services, price
specials and other programs offered by Savor Beauty. Savor Beauty
specializes in providing organic skincare and bath products,
including body washes, cleansers, moisturizers, serums, and masks,
along with spa services such as facials, massages, body treatments,
and specialized skincare treatments. Yet, Savorbeauty.com contains
significant access barriers that make it difficult if not
impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the
website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind
and visually-impaired users to enjoy and learn about the services
at Savorbeauty.com prior to entering Defendant's physical location.
Thus, Savor Beauty excludes the blind and visually-impaired from
the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy
that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace
and daily living, says the suit.
Because Defendant's website, Savorbeauty.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 Savor Beauty'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, the Plaintiff contends.
Savor Beauty provides to the public a website known as
Savorbeauty.com which provides consumers with access to an array of
skincare products and spa services which Defendant offers in
connection with their physical location.
Consumers across the United States use the Defendant's website to
find the information about the spa locations and hours of
operation, as well as information about the goods and services in
its physical locations. The Defendant's website is a place of
public accommodation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr,
Brooklyn, New York 11234
Telephone: (718) 914‑9694
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
SCHENKER INC: Class Cert Hearing Continued to Jan. 16, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts
entered an order that the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification is continued from Oct. 10, 2024 to Jan. 16, 2025.
The parties are ordered to submit a Joint Status Report regarding
the status of mediation by no later than Oct. 17, 2024. The Court
will not grant another schedule modification absent a clear showing
of good cause.
Schenker provides transportation and logistics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NUR8HT 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 Defendant is 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
SCHNADER HARRISON: Class Cert. Bid in Bennett Extended to Dec. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JO BENNETT, v. SCHNADER
HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00592-JMY
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Young entered an order that
the Plaintiff's deadline to file any motion for class certification
is extended to Dec. 6, 2024.
Schnader was a U.S. law firm based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
and founded in Philadelphia in 1935
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2xPHsq at no extra
charge.[CC]
SEAGRAPE SQUARE: Feltzin Sues Over Disabled's Access to Property
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE FELTZIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEAGRAPE SQUARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
9:24-cv-81156 (S.D. Fla., September 20, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of its property and business. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered
architectural barriers in common areas such as parking and exterior
accessible routes and public restrooms.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove
the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when
such removal is readily achievable for the place of public
accommodation.
Seagrape Square, LLC is a commercial property owner and operator
doing business in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com
SELECT REHABILITATION: McLaughlin Bid for Protective Order OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN,
CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, JUSTIN LEMBKE, and SCOTT HARDT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. SELECT
REHABILITATION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Harvey Schlesinger entered an order that:
1. "Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order Re: Precertification
Depositions Unilaterally Set by Select" is granted to the
extent
that Select Rehab will only be permitted to depose the named
plaintiffs-Scott Hardt and Crystal Vanderveen-whose
declarations
are attached to the Motion to Certify Class by All
Plaintiffs.
2. This ruling does not prohibit Select Rehab from later moving
to
depose additional declarants after concluding the depositions
of
Hardt and Vanderveen. Should Select Rehab do so, it must
demonstrate to this Court a particularized need to obtain
information that is not available from the class
representatives.
3. "Defendant's Motion to Compel Depositions of 29 Declarants
Submitted in Support of Rule 23 Class Claim" is denied as
moot.
Select Rehabilitation provides comprehensive therapy services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=opWaPu at no extra
charge.[CC]
SHANER OPERATING: Continuation of Class Cert Deadline Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY PATON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SHANER OPERATING CORP., Case No. 2:24-cv-01498-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to continue the "motion
for class certification" deadline, currently scheduled for Oct. 14,
2024, until Nov. 14, 2024.
-- Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 1, 2024. The Defendant
answered the Complaint on May 29, 2024.
-- In the weeks that followed, the parties selected a mediator and
discussed a favorable date for mediation. The parties have now
scheduled mediation for Oct. 21, 2024.
-- Discovery in this case is not set to close until Feb. 15, 2025.
The Defendant filed an unopposed motion to stay on Sept. 4,
2024
Shaner operates a portfolio of hotels that offer an auditorium,
guest rooms, meeting rooms, restaurants, shops, and a soccer
training facility.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2mNaym at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
50 Public Square, Suite 1900
Cleveland, OH 44113
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
E. Graham Newsome, Esq.
Robert A. Luskin, Esq.
CHARTWELL LAW
3200 Cobb Galleria Pkwy, Suite 250
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 410-1151
Facsimile: (404) 738-1632
E-mail: GNewsome@chartwelllaw.com
rluskin@chartwelllaw.com
SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Giana Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN GIANA is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled Alan Giana, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shein Distribution Corp.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-2599, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The class action is filed against the Defendants for alleged
industrial-scale scheme of systematic, digital copyright
infringement of the work of small artists and designers, including
the Plaintiff.
On June 7, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or
strike, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Jed S. Rakoff on Aug. 14, 2024. The Court granted the motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion
to strike the Plaintiff's class action allegations was dismissed as
moot.
The appellate case is captioned Giana v. Shein Distribution Corp.,
Case No. 24-2465, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on September 20, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ALAN GIANA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Wesley Mullen, Esq.
MULLEN P.C.
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Defendants-Appellees SHEIN DISTRIBUTION CORP., et al. are
represented by:
Michael E. Williams, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
SHOWCASE KITCHENS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHOWCASE KITCHENS, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-01180-WCG (E.D. Wis., Sept. 17, 2024) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Davis was employed by the Defendant as a installer.
Showcase Kitchens Inc. operates as a wood kitchen cabinet
manufacturing company. The Company designs and manufactures kitchen
cabinets, countertops, and custom furniture pieces. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Snowflake 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 February 29, 2024, a
stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against the company, its
former Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer in the
United States District Court in the Northern District of
California, alleging violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys'
fees, expert fees, and other costs. The case is at a very
preliminary stage.
Snowflake Inc. provides a cloud-based data platform for solving
business problems, build data applications and share data and data
products.
SPACE COAST: Leyva Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RENDON LEYVA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SPACE COAST CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:24-cv-14168-DMM (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the
extension of time for any motion for class certification up to and
including October 28, 2024.
Based on what the Plaintiff has learned in discovery already
conducted, Plaintiff propounded – and will propound –
additional discovery following the Sept. 16, 2024 deposition, to
better identify the number of individuals who would fall into the
putative class as alleged by the Plaintiff during the relevant
statute of limitations. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33(b)(2), Defendant has 30 days to respond to interrogatories and
requests for production issued by Plaintiff.
The extension of time is necessary, as Plaintiffs are still in the
process of requesting additional discovery and investigating the
true size and nature of the putative class alleged in this case.
The time for discovery has not yet expired in this case, the suit
says.
The Court entered a schedule in this case on July 30, 2024. The
Plaintiff propounded first sets of discovery in this case on Aug.
12-13, 2024, and received Defendant's responses and objections on
Sept. 12-13, 2024.
Space Coast is an American state-chartered credit union
headquartered in Melbourne, Florida. It is insured and regulated by
the National Credit Union Administration.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rNU0At at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francisco Symphorien-Saavedra, Esq.
SYMPHORIEN-SAAVEDRA LAW P.A.
189 S. Orange Avenue, Ste. 1800
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 802-1717
E-mail: frank@symphorienlaw.com
- and -
Andrea E. Senteno, Esq.
Thomas A. Saenz, Esq.
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATIONAL FUND
1016 16th Street NW, Ste. 100
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 293-2828
E-mail: asenteno@maldef.org
tsaenz@maldef.org
SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Faces Kogut Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended August 3, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2024, that on
January 22, 2024, Jon Kogut filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the company and the members of its Board of Directors in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.
The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a putative class comprised
of all stockholders other than defendants and any current directors
or officers of the Company and is captioned Kogut v. Bejar, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0055-MTZ (Del. Ch.). In his complaint, Mr. Kogut
contends that certain provisions in the company's advance notice
bylaws are invalid and void and that the members of the board have
breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by adopting and
maintaining the Challenged Provisions.
In addition to seeking declaratory, equitable, and injunctive
relief, Mr. Kogut seeks an award of attorneys' fees and other costs
and expenses on behalf of the putative class.
Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc. operates a retail sporting
goods stores with 146 stores in 32 states and an e-commerce
platform at www.sportsmans.com.
STERICYCLE INC: Holliday Seeks Account Managers' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIERRA HOLLIDAY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STERICYCLE, INC. a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08580 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 18, 2024) seeks
to recover from Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law,
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and common law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately April 26,
2023 through April 18, 2024 as a non-exempt employee in the
position of Account Manager.
Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, she routinely
worked more than 40 hours in a workweek with an average of 52 hours
a workweek. The Defendant violated the FLSA by knowingly suffering
or permitting her and similarly situated Account Managers to work
in excess of 40 hours during a workweek without paying overtime
compensation at a rate of one and half times the regular rate, says
the Plaintiff.
Stericycle, Inc. is a business-to-business services company. The
Company provides solutions for regulated waste disposal,
compliance, and secure information destruction services. Stericycle
serves healthcare organizations and commercial businesses
worldwide.[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
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Meghan Higday, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park E., Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: mh@melmedlaw.com
jm@melmedlaw.com
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Court Terminates Pending Bids in Bernard Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARD, et al., v.
STRATEGIC DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07396 (D.N.J.,
Filed Dec. 19, 2022), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered
an order administratively terminating the pending motions until the
Zambrano Motion is decided.
However, before doing so the Court will provide the parties with an
opportunity to submit a letter within three days of this Order, not
to exceed three pages, advising if they disagree that the Zambrano
Motion must be decided first.
The Court has reviewed the pending motion to transfer and motion to
certify class. It appears to the Court that these motions cannot be
decided until the motion for leave to file second amended complaint
presently pending in the Southern District of New York, in the
matter of Zambrano et al v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC et al
(1:15-cv-08410) is decided.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Defendant is a logistics and supply chain, freight & logistics
services, and logistics company located in Clark, New Jersey.[CC]
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Vehicles Have Defective Mirrors, Robinson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katelyn Robinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Subaru of America, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-09334
(D.N.J., Sept. 20, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of
herself and a proposed class of past and present owners and lessees
of defective 2024 Subaru Crosstrek and 2024 Subaru Ascent vehicles
(the "Class Vehicles") marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and
serviced by the Defendant.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class were
damaged because the Class Vehicles contain defective side-view
mirrors. Prior to selling the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and class
members, Defendant knew that the Class Vehicles contained a safety
defect causing the driver-side mirror to shake and vibrate while
the Class Vehicles are driven (the "Mirror Defect"). As a result of
the Defect, the reflection of the road and other drivers in the
driver-side mirror is distorted and drivers are unable to safely
drive and observe traffic.
The Mirror Defect is a result of, inter alia, deficient materials
used to make the mirror housing itself and/or a deficiency in the
structure of the mirror housing, the lawsuit says.
The alleged Mirror Defect poses an extreme safety hazard to drivers
and other operators because a vibrating mirror distorts the
reflection of vehicles or objects behind or alongside the vehicle,
which makes it difficult for a driver to accurately judge distances
or identify potential hazards, especially at night, increasing the
risk of accidents during lane changes or turns.
Subaru is in the business of marketing, supplying, and selling
motor vehicles accompanied by written warranties to the public at
large through a system of authorized dealerships.[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
SUMMIT NATIONAL BANK: Purnell Files Suit in D. Wyoming
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summit National Bank.
The case is styled as Brian Purnell, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Summit National Bank, Case No.
2:24-cv-00190-KHR (D. Wyo., Sept. 23, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach
of Contract.
Summit National Bank offers modern banking conveniences for clients
in Salmon, ID, Ekalaka, MT & Hulett, WY plus commercial, ag, real
estate, & construction lending.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith R Nachbar, Esq.
KEITH R. NACHBAR, P.C.
703 N. Lincoln Street
Casper, WY 82601
Phone: (307) 473-8977
Fax: (307) 473-8989
Email: keith@nachbarlaw.com
SUN GEORGE: Underpays Construction Staff, Menjivar Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Alexander Menjivar, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hossein "George" Mostaghasi,
Individually and d/b/a Sun George Contracting, Mostaghasi George
Development LLC, Empire Apartments LLC, Mostaghasi Enterprises
Inc., Portland Village LLC, Sun George Venture LLC, Manhattan Plaza
LLC, MST, LLC, Bellini Plaza LLC, Saratoga Oaks Apartments, LLC,
GTHH Development, LLC, and The Mostaghasi Investment Trust,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00211 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 17, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants to recover Plaintiff's and
similarly situated employees' unpaid overtime that is required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Menjivar worked for Mostaghasi and his companies as an
hourly construction worker from 2020 until February of 2024.
Plaintiff's duties included performing construction work, operating
machinery related to construction work, and supervising other
construction workers. He asserts that Defendants paid him on an
hourly basis and classified him as an independent contractor. The
Defendants did not pay him an overtime premium for any of the hours
he worked over 40 in a workweek. Instead, Defendants paid him the
same hourly rate for all the hours he worked, says the Plaintff.
Mostaghasi George Development LLC is a construction-related and
real estate development company based in Corpus Christi,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
SUPERMERCADOS MAXIMO: Disabled Can't Access Property, Mass Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILFREDO TORRES MASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERMERCADOS MAXIMO, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-01445 (D.P.R., September 20, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of its property and business. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered
architectural barriers in common areas such accessible routes,
entrance door, aisles, counters, checkout, property restrooms.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove
the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when
such removal is readily achievable for the place of public
accommodation.
Supermercados Maximo, Inc. is a commercial property owner and
operator doing business in Puerto Rico. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jose Carlos Velez Colon, Esq.
VELEZ LAW GROUP LLC
RR 18 Box 1390, #311
San Juan, PR 00926
Telephone: (787) 422-1881
Email: vlg@velezlawgroup.com
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Estimator reports that T-Mobile USA, Inc., is facing a
collective action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington, alleging Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) violations. The lawsuit, initiated by
plaintiff Olvin Gomez from Palm Beach County, Florida, represents
himself and similarly situated employees and claims that T-Mobile
failed to calculate and pay the correct overtime rates as mandated
by federal law.
Filed on September 13, 2024, the complaint alleges that T-Mobile's
practices have led to the miscalculation of overtime pay for
non-exempt hourly workers. Specifically, the lawsuit points to how
T-Mobile handled "on-call" premium pay of $30, which the company
treated as a standalone hour of work for overtime calculations
rather than incorporating it into the employee's regular pay rate
as required by federal regulations.
Gomez, who has worked as a Senior Technician for T-Mobile in
Riviera Beach, Florida, since 2014, is paid at a regular rate of
$41 per hour. According to the complaint, T-Mobile's overtime
calculation based on a $30 on-call rate resulted in underpayment.
The plaintiff asserts that this practice does not align with the
FLSA's requirements, which mandate that on-call payments be
included in the regular pay rate when determining overtime rates.
For instance, if an employee works 50 hours in a week, the lawsuit
contends that the overtime rate should be based on the regular
rate, which includes on-call pay, rather than a separate, lower
on-call rate. By treating the $30 on-call payment as an individual
rate, T-Mobile allegedly reduced the overtime rate to $45 per hour
instead of the correct rate of $61.50 per hour. This miscalculation
results in a significant underpayment for employees.
The lawsuit further alleges that this practice has been
systematically applied to thousands of T-Mobile employees
nationwide. It seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs for all affected employees. The
action aims to include all current and former non-exempt, full-time
hourly employees of T-Mobile who received on-call pay within the
past three years.
Gomez's attorneys argue that T-Mobile knowingly disregarded federal
regulations and did not act in good faith compliance with the FLSA.
They claim that the company controls its employees' employment
terms and pay practices and, therefore, is responsible for ensuring
compliance with wage and hour laws.
The collective action, filed under Section 216(b) of the FLSA,
challenges T-Mobile's compensation practices and seeks to secure
total compensation for unpaid and miscalculated overtime for
employees across the United States. [GN]
T.C. RESTAURANT: Beers Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alecia Beers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. T.C. RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, d/b/a JASON ALDEAN'S
KITCHEN AND ROOFTOP BAR, Case No. 3:24-cv-01145 (M.D. Tenn., Sept.
23, 2024), to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unlawfully
retained tips, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Defendant generally paid Plaintiff and those she seeks to
represent a tipped hourly wage less than the statutory $7.25 per
hour minimum wage and $10.88 per hour minimum overtime wage for
hours worked over 40 in a workweek under the tip credit provisions
of the FLSA (hereafter, "Tip Credit Employees").
The Defendant, however, failed to satisfy the requirements for
utilizing the tip credit to meet their minimum-wage and overtime
obligations to their Tip Credit Employees by: failing to provide
Tip Credit Employees with the required notice before taking the tip
credit; requiring Tip Credit Employees to share tips with
non-tipped employees who have no or insufficient customer
interaction; retaining a portion of tips earned by their Tip Credit
Employees; requiring Tip Credit Employees to work dual jobs—one
job that involves tipped work and another job that involves
non-tipped work—all while paid at the lower, tipped hourly rate;
and requiring Tip Credit Employees to work off-the-clock without
pay.
As a result of these violations, Defendant is not permitted to rely
on the "tip credit" to satisfy its minimum wage and overtime
obligations under the FLSA and therefore has failed to pay the
required minimum wage and overtime wage. Plaintiff and those she
seeks to represent are therefore entitled to recover the statutory
$7.25 per hour minimum wage (and $10.88 per hour minimum overtime
wage for hours worked over 40 in a workweek), unlawfully retained
tips, liquidated damages, and all attorneys' fees and costs, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff Beers has been employed by Defendant since June of
2021 and works as a server.
The Defendant owns and operates the Jason Aldean's Kitchen +
Rooftop Bar located in Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
200 31st Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
TELADOC HEALTH: Faces Ochoa Class Action Suit Over TikTok Software
------------------------------------------------------------------
KYMBRELI OCHOA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TELADOC HEALTH, INC., a New York corporation; and DOES
1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-08097 (C.D. Cal., Sept.
20, 2024) alleges that the Defendant has installed on its Website
software created by TikTok in order to identify website visitors
(the "TikTok Software").
The TikTok Software acts via a process known as "fingerprinting."
Put simply, the TikTok Software collects as much data as it can
about an otherwise anonymous visitor to the Website and matches it
with existing data TikTok has acquired and accumulated about
hundreds of millions of Americans.
According to the complaint, the TikTok Software begins to collect
information the moment a user lands on the Website. Thus, even
though the Website has a "cookie banner" the information has
already been sent to TikTok regarding the user's visit.
Additionally, when the website asks for information, such as name,
date of birth, and address, the information is sent simultaneously
to TikTok, so that TikTok can isolate with certainty the individual
to be targeted.
Teladoc is a multinational telemedicine and virtual healthcare
company. The company offers comprehensive care including talk
therapy, diagnosis and medication support. The Defendant owns,
operates, and/or controls www.livongo.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Matthew J. Smith, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 927-9270
E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com
matthew@taulersmith.com
TEXFC LLC: Sumlin Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TEXFC, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07168 (S.D.N.Y., September 22, 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.frenchcrown.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: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without
advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccurate
drop-down menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields,
redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address,
and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a
mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
TEXFC, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing
business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
THEORY STORES: Quiroz Suit Seeks to Recover Regular, OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elena M. Quiroz, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals v. Theory Stores Inc, a/k/a Privilege Clothing, Inc.,
dba Privilege Stores and Marlene Mendez, individually, Case No.
8:24-cv-02227 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 21, 2024) seeks to recover monetary
damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current
and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked
more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after August
2022, without being adequately compensated.
The Defendant is a retailer of women's clothing, shoes, and
accessories. Defendant has a place of business located at 459
Brandon Town Center Dr, Brandon, FL 33511, where Plaintiff worked.
Ms. Quiroz is a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida. The
Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act.
Theory Stores is a Florida Profit Corporation performing business
in Hillsborough County. The individual Defendant Marlene Mendez was
and is now the owner/partner/officer and manager of the Defendant
Corporation Privilege.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Suit for COPPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Knolle, writing for The Wrap, reports that TikTok and its
parent company ByteDance were hit with a class action lawsuit on
Tuesday, Sept. 17, from parents who say that the social media
platform violated children's online privacy laws.
The suit alleges that TikTok collected personal information on
users under 13, which goes against the rules and guidelines of the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, aka COPPA.
According to court documents obtained by TheWrap, "Plaintiffs seek
to represent millions of American children whose personal
information has been unlawfully collected and used by TikTok" and
to hold the platform accountable for "repeatedly violating the
rights of American children" and "to ensure that TikTok's
misconduct is finally stopped."
The suit also claims that TikTok's predecessor Musical.ly, which
launched in 2014, also "repeatedly and persistently" violated COPPA
(that app was merged into TikTok in August 2018 after ByteDance
acquired it in November 2017).
The docs cite a 2016 article by New York Times tech reporter John
Herrman, who noted that "the app does not collect or show the age
of its users, but some of its top-ranked users . . . appear from
their videos and profile photos to be in grade-school. Until
recently, the app had a feature that suggested users to follow
based on their location. In New York, that feature revealed a list
composed largely not just of teenagers, but of children."
Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice similarly sued TikTok
and ByteDance over COPPA violations, alleging the popular social
media app "knowingly and repeatedly" infringed on children's
privacy.
The DOJ said the platform, which "collects, stores and processes"
data from its users of all ages, "knowingly allowed children under
13 to create and use TikTok accounts without their parents'
knowledge or consent, have collected extensive data from those
children, and have failed to comply with parents' request to delete
their children's accounts and personal information."
TikTok denied the claims in a statement. "We disagree with these
allegations, many of which relate to past events and practices that
are factually inaccurate or have been addressed. We are proud of
our efforts to protect children, and we will continue to update and
improve the platform," the company said, per reports. "To that end,
we offer age-appropriate experiences with stringent safeguards,
proactively remove suspected underage users, and have voluntarily
launched features such as default screentime limits, Family Pairing
and additional privacy protections for minors."
In April, President Biden signed a law that gave ByteDance 90 days
to find a non-Chinese buyer or be banned nationwide. The law is set
to go into effect on Jan. 19, 2025. On Monday, Sept. 16, the
company argued in front of a panel of three judges from the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as to why the ban should not
be implemented.
Also on Tuesday, Instagram revealed wide-sweeping privacy
restrictions for users under 18 in order to give parents "peace of
mind." [GN]
TOWNE PARK: Rojas Class Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHAN ROJAS v. TOWNE PARK SERVICES, LLC, a/k/a TOWNE PARK, LLC Case
No. 1:24-cv-23644 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 21, 2024) is a collective
action complaint brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid overtime wages, stolen tips, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and other relief for the Defendant's unlawful
actions, including failure to pay the Plaintiff proper wages,
misappropriation of tips, and retaliation. Plaintiff was unlawfully
terminated after complaining about these violations.
Plaintiff Rojas is an individual residing in Miami-Dade County,
Florida, who was employed as a Valet Parking Attendant by
Defendant.
Towne Park is a provider of valet parking services, serving
healthcare institutions, hotels, and other businesses. Defendant
performed business at Hells Kitchen restaurant located at 333
Biscayne Blvd. Way, Miami, Florida, where Plaintiff worked.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
TRC STAFFING: Burke Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Filing Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Burke v. TRC Staffing
Services, Inc. (TRC STAFFING SERVICES, INC. DATA BREACH
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:24-cv-02398-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order to suspend or stay deadline for
filing motion for class certification pending the submission of a
proposed Case Management Report and the Court's entry of a case
management order.
At present, the Plaintiff's requirements under Rule 23 could not be
satisfied with a skeletal, perfunctory motion for class
certification.
For the Plaintiff to properly advance a motion for class
certification and comply with the legal requirements of Rule 23 and
relevant case law, the Plaintiff needs additional time to propound,
receive, and review discovery responses and documents from the
Defendant, conduct depositions, and prepare motions and memoranda,
including expert reports.
The Plaintiff's counsel have met and discussed these issues and, at
the appropriate time after consolidation, intend to propose a Case
Management Report, which will include a revised proposed schedule
for class certification briefing.
The Defendant does not oppose this request. This request to suspend
or toll the deadline is made in good faith, and not for the
purposes of undue delay or obfuscation. No prior extensions of time
have been sought or obtained for this deadline
The Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint on June 20, 2024. On
July 29, 2024, this Court granted the parties' Motion to
Consolidate this action and ten related actions.
TRC is a full-service staffing solutions provider.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VfPuSZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (678) 642-2503
E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
- and -
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: kelly@lcllp.com
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE: Settlement in Sellers Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Connie Sellers and Sean
Cooper, individually and as the representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Boston College
401(K) Retirement Plan I and the Boston College 401(K) Retirement
Plan II, v. Trustees of Boston College, Plan Investment Committee,
and John and Jane Does 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-10912-WGY (D. Mass.),
the Hon. Judge William Young entered an order granting preliminary
approval of class action settlement.
Trustees of Boston College offers degrees in both undergraduate and
graduate level.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NF8Uqk at no extra
charge.[CC]
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Edge Case Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edge v. Tupperware Brands
Corporation, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-01518 (M.D. Fla., Filed Aug.
25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. entered an order
staying Edge case in light of the Suggestion of Bankruptcy as to
Tupperware.
On Monday, Nov. 25, 2024, and every 60 days thereafter, the
Plaintiffs are directed to file a report on the status of the
bankruptcy proceedings.
The Order on class certification is vacated as it was entered in
error after the Suggestion of Bankruptcy.
The Clerk is directed to remove it from the docket. By Monday, Oct.
7, 2024, the Plaintiffs and the individual Defendants are directed
to file a joint notice indicating whether the case can and should
proceed against Fernandez and Harris while the bankruptcy stay is
in place.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Tupperware is an American multinational company that produces home
product lines that include kitchen gadgets, preparation, storage
containers, and serving products for the kitchen and home.[CC]
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Edge Wins Class Certification
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL EDGE; MICHAEL J.
DENNEHY; and RALPH ESTEP, v. TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION; MIGUEL
FERNANDEZ; and CASSANDRA HARRIS, Case No. 6:22-cv-01518-RBD-LHP
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Dalton Jr. entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion as follows:
a. The Court certifies the following class:
"All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired
securities of Tupperware Brands Corporation, between May 5,
2021, and May 4, 2022, inclusive, and were injured thereby.
b. The Court appoints Michael Edge as Class Representative.
c. The Court appoints Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. and Michael
Wernke, Esq. of Pomerantz LLP and Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.,
Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq., and Morgan M. Embleton, Esq. of
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Class Counsel.
d. By Friday, Nov. 1, 2024, the parties are directed to meet
and
confer and then file a joint notice that: (1) describes the
proposed identification of class members and their contact
information; (2) describes the method of disseminating
class
notice; and (3) proposes a notice to be disseminated to the
class. To the extent the parties cannot agree, their
positions
should be described with supporting authority in the
notice.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and its former CEO and CFO
made material misstatements and omissions about the company.
On June 14, 2022, Edge filed this putative class action against
Tupperware.
On Nov. 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint,
dropping Edge and adding Dennehy and Estep as named Plaintiffs.
Tupperware produces home product lines that include kitchen
gadgets, preparation, storage containers, and serving products for
the kitchen and home.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CwaFCC at no extra
charge.[CC]
TYCO FIRE: Burlington Opted Out of PFAS Class Suit Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington's city council has decided to opt out of class action
settlements with two corporations that are accused of releasing
so-called "forever chemicals" into the water supply of cities and
towns across the U.S.
The council issued a formal resolution on Tuesday, Sept. 17, in
which declined to join these class action claims against Tyco and
BSAF over their suspected roles in the proliferation of
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl compounds, or PFAS, as they're
more commonly known.
These manmade chemicals, which turn up in everything from nonstick
cookware to textiles, have recently become a concern for state and
federal regulators due to their carcinogenic potential as well as
their persistence in the natural environment. PFAS has also been a
priority for officials in Burlington due, in no small part, to
complaints from Pittsboro and other communities that believe the
city's sewage treatment system has served as a conduit for PFAS
contamination from area industries.
In order to scrub these compounds from its wastewater emissions,
the city has teamed up with a Burlington-based startup that has
pioneered a new process for eliminating PFAS from water. Thanks to
a $500,000 grant from the state, the city has agreed to take part
in a pilot program to test the efficacy of this technology. In the
meantime, the city is bracing itself for a multimillion overhaul of
its treatment facilities in order to prevent PFAS and other
"emerging contaminants" from entering the water supply.
Despite the city's own struggles with PFAS, the council has decided
not to join the class action against Tyco and BSAF in light of the
constraints that such a move would impose on the city's legal
prerogatives. According to the resolution, the federal courts have
bundled thousands of individual lawsuits into the proposed
settlements with an eye on limiting the legal liability for the two
corporations.
"The Tyco and BASF settlements include broad releases of future
PFAS-related claims," the council's resolution goes on to assert.
"It is in the public interest for the city to preserve any
PFAS-related claims. . . against Tyco, BASF and other potential
defendants until the risks and impacts of PFAS are better
understood."
The council initially reached a consensus to forgo these class
action settlements during a brief closed-door discussion with the
city attorney on Monday, Sept. 16. The council spent roughly five
minutes in this confab, which took place at the end of a two-hour
work session that evening. The result of these deliberations was
the aforementioned resolution, which the council rubberstamped a
day later as part of a "consent agenda" of putatively routine or
noncontroversial items of business. [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: $200MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-06361-RS
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Uber's publicly traded common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Offering Documents for Uber's IPO, and who were damaged
thereby, i.e., those who purchased shares from May 10, 2019 through
November 5, 2019, inclusive.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that Court-appointed Class
Representatives Boston Retirement System, David Messinger,
Salvatore Toronto acting on behalf of the Ellie Marie Toronto ESA,
and Irving S. and Judith Braun; and additional named plaintiff
Joseph Cianci (together with Class Representatives, "Plaintiffs"),
and the other members of the certified Class; and Defendants Uber
Technologies, Inc. ("Uber"), Dara Khosrowshahi, Nelson Chai, Glen
Ceremony, Ronald Sugar, Ursula Burns, Garrett Camp, Matt Cohler,
Ryan Graves, Arianna Huffington, Travis Kalanick, Wan Ling
Martello, Yasir Al-Rumayyan, John Thain, and David Trujillo
(collectively, the "Individual Defendants" and, together with Uber,
the "Uber Defendants"); and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs
& Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,
Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Allen &
Company LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc. (now known as Truist Securities, Inc.), Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities
America, Inc., Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Needham & Company, LLC,
Loop Capital Markets LLC, Siebert Cisneros Shank & Co., L.L.C.,
Academy Securities, Inc., BTIG, LLC, Canaccord Genuity LLC,
CastleOak Securities, L.P., Cowen and Company, LLC, Evercore Group
L.L.C., JMP Securities LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Mischler
Financial Group, Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Raymond James &
Associates, Inc., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., The Williams
Capital Group, L.P., and TPG Capital BD, LLC (collectively, the
"Underwriter Defendants" and, together with Uber and the Individual
Defendants, the "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement
of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action")
and related claims in the amount of $200,000,000 (the
"Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Richard Seeborg on
December 5, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. (Pacific), either in person at the
Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, in Courtroom
3-17th Floor, or, in the Court's discretion, by telephone or
videoconference (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things,
determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed
Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the
Action as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement,
dated July 19, 2024; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation
for distribution of the settlement funds available for distribution
to eligible Class Members (the "Net Settlement Fund"); and (iv)
approve Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may
change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely,
without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the
Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net
Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Settlement Postcard, you
may obtain copies of the Settlement Postcard, long-form Settlement
Notice, and Claim Form by visiting the website for the case,
www.UberIPOSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:
Uber Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173070
Milwaukee, WI 53217
www.UberIPOSecuritiesLitigation.com
info@UberIPOSecuritiesLitigation.com
(877) 390-3460
Inquiries, other than requests for copies of notices and a Claim
Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be
made to Class Counsel:
Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com
(888) 219-6877
If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or submitted online no later than November 20,
2024. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by
all judgments and orders entered by the Court relating to the
Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class
in connection with the Class Notice mailed in 2023 and want to opt
back into the Class and be eligible to receive a payment, you must
request to opt back into the Class by submitting a written request
in accordance with the instructions in the Settlement Notice such
that the request is received no later than November 14, 2024. If
you previously excluded yourself from the Class in connection with
the Class Notice and do not opt back into the Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will
not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court in accordance with the instructions in the
Settlement Notice, such that they are received no later than
November 14, 2024.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
Dated: September 6, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court for the
Northern District of California
UNIFI AVIATION: Bryant Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
RIOVONNI BRYANT, BRANDON MCKINNEY, EMILY PADILLA, and AZARAEL
TUTMAN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs v. UNIFI AVIATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04141-AT (N.D. Ga., September 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
expenses.
The suit arises from Defendant's failure and/or refusal to pay
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons the overtime rate
for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons were employed by
Defendant as Wheelchair Agents or Customer Service Leads at an
airport.
Unifi Aviation, LLC provides wheelchair services at the
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael B. Schoenfeld, Esq.
STANFORD FAGAN LLC
2540 Lakewood Avenue SW
Atlanta, GA 30315
Telephone: (404) 622-0521, ext. 2244
E-mail: michaels@sfglawyers.com
UNITED SITE: Garcia Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ALLEN GARCIA, an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., UNITED SITE NATIONAL
SERVICES COMPANY, UNITED SITE SERVICES, INC., A-THONE CO., INC.,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-03019-MRA-SK
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on Nov. 14, 2024,
for preliminary approval of class action settlement and
certification of settlement class.
United Site is a provider of porta potties, bathroom trailers,
shower trailers, temporary fences & dumpster services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WeTSwb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Vedang J. Patel, Esq.
Brandon M. Chang, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
vedang@tomorrowlaw.com
brandon@tomorrowlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Mathis Due Oct. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATHIS, et al., v. UNITED
STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01312 (D.D.C.,
Filed May 6, 2024), the Hon. Judge Trevor N. Mcfadden entered an
order that:
-- the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification is due
by
Oct. 3,
-- the Defendants' Opposition is due by Nov. 4, and
-- Plaintiff's Reply is due by Nov.18.
The suit alleges violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
The United States Parole Commission is the parole board responsible
for granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole
releases of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its
jurisdiction. It is part of the United States Department of
Justice.[CC]
VISA INC: Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions Tossed
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as B & R SUPERMARKET, INC.,
d/b/a Milam's Market, GROVE LIQUORS LLC, STROUK GROUP LLC, d/b/a
Monsieur Marcel, and PALERO FOOD CORP. and CAGUEYES FOOD CORP.,
d/b/a Fine Fare Supermarket, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. VISA INC., VISA U.S.A. INC.,
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY,
and DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, Case No. 1:17-cv-02738-MKB-JAM
(E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Margo Brodie entered an order:
(1) denying Visa, Mastercard, and Discover's motion to exclude
the
opinions of Dr. Abrantes-Metz,
(2) granting in part and denying in part Amex's motion to
exclude
the testimony of Dr. Abrantes-Metz,
(3) denying Visa, Mastercard, and Discover's motion to exclude
the
opinions of Dr. Officer,
(4) granting in part and denying in part Amex's motion to
exclude
the testimony of Dr. Officer,
(5) denying Visa and Mastercard's motion to exclude Dr.
Officer's
AFD benchmark opinions, and
(6) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to
exclude the opinion of Visa and Mastercard's expert Julie
Conroy.
The Court concludes that Dr. Abrantes-Metz's opinions have "a
sufficiently 'reliable foundation' to permit [them] to be
considered," and that her proffered testimony is "the product of
reliable principles and methods" such that exclusion is not
warranted on the basis of her chosen methodologies.
The Court is unpersuaded by Visa, Mastercard, and Discover's
arguments that Dr. Officer is unqualified to offer opinions about
the but-for world in this case. As a professor with a Ph.D. in
finance, Dr. Officer has training and experience in a
closely-related field, has published research and articles on
issues related to economics and competition, and has provided
expert testimony in other antitrust cases.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated antitrust laws by
entering into a conspiracy to: (1) adopt the same policy via nearly
identical rules for shifting billions of dollars in liability for
fraudulent charges, or "chargebacks," from banks to merchants; and
(2) make the Liability Shift effective on the same day and in the
same manner for all four networks, to prevent merchants from
steering customers to use cards with more lenient terms or
concessions such as reduced interchange or merchant discount fees.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational payment card services
corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j0n6Rm at no extra
charge.[CC]
VOLUMETRIC BUILDING: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volumetric Building
Companies LLC, et al. The case is styled as Izaak Rodriguez,
individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, the State
of California, and other aggrieved employees v. Volumetric Building
Companies LLC, Sourcenow, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0012194
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 23, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Volumetric Building Companies (VBC) -- https://www.vbc.co/ -- is a
vertically integrated global volumetric modular construction
technology leader headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
WELLS FARGO: Filing for Class Status Bid Due March 24, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID A. KIRKPATRICK, v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., doing business as Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
and HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 5:24-cv-00169 (S.D.W. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order setting the following case
events and dates relating to class certification:
Deadline for written fact discovery related Jan. 30, 2025
to class certification:
Deadline for fact witness depositions related Mar. 3, 2025
to class certification:
Deadline for plaintiffs to serve expert Mar. 12, 2025
reports supporting class certification:
Deadline to serve motion for class Mar. 24, 2025
Certification:
Deadline for Defendants to serve expert Apr. 11, 2025
reports supporting class certification:
Deadline for response to motion for class Apr. 30, 2025
Certification:
Hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class May 9, 2025
Certification:
Wells Fargo offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans
and credit, investment and retirement, wealth management, and
insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KJCkaB at no extra
charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Second Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Patterson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARD J. PATTERSON, v.
WELLS FARGO & CO., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03858-TLT (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a second revised case
management and scheduling order:
1. Trial Date: Jan. 26, 2026
2. Final Pretrial Conference: Dec. 11, 2025
3. Class Certication Hearing Last day to be heard:
June
(Numerosity, Typicality, 10, 2025, 2:00 p.m.
Superiority): Last day to file
motions:
March 25, 2025
Opposition due: April 29,
2025; Reply due May 26,
2025
4. Fact Discovery Cut-Off May 30, 2025
5. Expert Reports: Opening reports by April
18,
2025
Rebuttal reports by May
16,
2025
Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company
with a significant global presence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1AF6YP at no extra
charge.[CC]
WILLIAM LEE: Parties Must File Supplemental Briefs by Oct. 1
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TENNESSEE CONFERENCE of
the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the ADVANCEMENT of COLORED PEOPLE, et
al., v. WILLIAM LEE, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01039 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. entered an order that on or
before Oct. 1, 2024, the parties shall file supplemental briefs
expressly stating their positions as to which complaint is the
operative complaint for purposes of determining standing for each
of the named Plaintiffs on each claim that Plaintiffs seek class
certification.
The Court is in receipt of Defendants' class certification briefing
filed pursuant to this Court's Order entered on Sept. 12, 2024. In
their brief, the Defendants contend, without citation to supporting
legal authority, that the Amended Complaint filed on Oct. 22, 2022,
is the operative complaint for purposes of determining the
Plaintiffs' standing on class certification.
And although class action is permissible so long as at least one
named plaintiff has standing, Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 446
(2009), courts "determine standing for each plaintiff on a
claim-by-claim basis" because "standing is not dispensed in gross."
Price v. Medicaid Dir., 838 F.3d 739, 746 (6th Cir. 2016).
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YIsn3f at no extra
charge.[CC]
WINIX GLOBAL: Faces Debari Suit Over Air Purifiers' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
CORY DEBARI, JULIAN NAVA and TAYLOR-ANNE HARRIS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WINIX GLOBAL LLC and
WINIX AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06596 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 19,
2024) is an action arising from false and misleading
representations that the Defendant made for years about its Winix
Models 6300, P300, 5300, 5500, 5300-2, 6300-2, AM90, C909, 9800,
C535 and C545 HEPA air purifiers (the "Air Purifiers"), along with
their respective replacement filters.
Specifically, the Defendant represented that the Air Purifiers were
equipped with "True" High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters
when in fact they were not. The Defendant also represented that the
replacement filters it sells for the Air Purifiers are "True HEPA"
filters when in fact they were not, the Plaintiffs contend.
Independent testing by the Plaintiffs' counsel has shown that the
filters used in the Air Purifiers and the replacement filters do
not meet HEPA standards, the Plaintiffs add.
The suit claims that the Defendant has profited greatly from the
explosion in the air purifier market brought about by the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic and yearly "once-in-a-lifetime" wildfires that
have ravaged the United States.
Accordingly, Defendant's HEPA misrepresentations allowed it to
overcharge consumers in the amount of the HEPA-related price
premium -- assuming there would be a market for the Defendant's
non-HEPA filters at all.
The Plaintiffs are now seeking a return of the HEPA-related
premiums that the Defendant charged for its Products, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated purchasers. The Plaintiffs
assert claims on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated purchasers of the Defendant's Products for: violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, violation of California's
False Advertising Law, violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
During the Fall of 2022, while in California, the Plaintiff Debari
purchased two Winix C535 Air Purifiers from Costco for about $130
each.
Winix is an air purifier company specializing in healthy home
appliances.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Luke Sironski-White, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com
lsironski@bursor.com
- and -
Greg Sinderbrand, Esq.
SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C.
2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 100
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (818) 370-3912
E-mail: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com
WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Class Cert Bid Filing in Milito Due Nov. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MILITO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WIZARDS OF THE
COAST LLC, a foreign limited liability company; HASBRO, INC., a
foreign profit corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01111-BJR (W.D.
Wash.), the Court entered an order setting the following deadlines
and briefing schedule:
Deadline Date
Joinder of Parties Deadline: May 1, 2025
Amended Pleadings: May 12, 2025
Deadline to complete discovery on class Oct. 6, 2025
certification (not to be construed as a
bifurcation of discovery):
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Motion Nov. 6, 2025
for Class Certification:
Deadline for Defendants to file Response Dec. 8, 2025
to Motion for Class Certification
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Reply in Dec. 22, 2025
Support of Motion for Class Certification:
Wizards is an American publisher of games, most of which are based
on fantasy and science-fiction themes, and formerly an operator of
retail game stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8BeZiK at no extra
charge.[CC]
WYETH INC: Class Cert Filing Due May 22, 2025
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROFESSIONAL DRUG COMPANY,
INC. v. WYETH, INC., (EFFEXOR XR ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
3:11-cv-05479-ZNQ-JBD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge J. Brendan Day
entered a
fourth amended scheduling order as follows:
-- The stay of proceedings previously entered in this litigation
is
Lifted.
-- The plenary fact discovery shall proceed forthwith and shall
remain open through April 18, 2025.
-- No discovery shall be issued or engaged in beyond that date,
except upon application and for good cause shown.
-- The plaintiffs shall serve all opening expert reports no later
than May 15, 2025.
-- The plaintiffs shall file any motions for class certification
no
later than May 22, 2025.
-- Teva shall serve any opposition expert reports no later than
July
17, 2025; and it is further
-- Teva shall file any briefs in opposition to class
certification,
and any Daubert motions relating to class certification, no
later
than July 24, 2025.
-- the plaintiffs shall file any reply briefs in further support
of
class certification, and opposition briefs to any Daubert
motions
relating to class certification, no later than Sept. 25, 2025.
-- Teva shall file any reply briefs in further support of any
Daubert
motions relating to class certification no later than Nov. 17,
2025.
Wyeth was a pharmaceutical company until it was purchased by Pfizer
in 2009.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=shMbbK at no extra
charge.[CC]
WYNN RESORTS: Settles Shareholder Class Action Suit for $70-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard N. Velotta, writing of Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports
that hundreds of Wynn Resorts Ltd. shareholders will split a $70
million class-action lawsuit settlement in a case stemming from
allegations the company didn't disclose the sexual misconduct of
former CEO Steve Wynn.
Wynn Resorts shareholders alleged their stock shares lost value as
a result of allegations of sexual misconduct by Steve Wynn, raised
in 2018, and the failure of Wynn executives to do anything about it
once they were made aware of the allegations.
New York-based law firm Pomerantz LLP announced Thursday, Sept. 19,
that it had filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court in Nevada
to grant preliminary approval to the settlement first announced by
Wynn Resorts earlier this month. At the time, the company did not
disclose the settlement amount in the case brought by John and
JoAnn Ferris and Jeffrey Larsen against the company, Steve Wynn,
four former Wynn executives and nine former members of the
company's board of directors.
Current executives and board members initially named in the lawsuit
were dismissed from it and all others who were named, including
Steve Wynn, are no longer with the company.
Recovery per class member unclear
It's unclear how much each individual shareholder will receive in
the settlement.
"Each class member that files a valid proof of claim will receive
their pro rata share of the net settlement fund," a representative
of the law firm said. "Attorneys will request that the court
approves a fee for their services and reimbursement of some costs,
which will come out of the $70 million fund. We cannot now predict
what a recovery per class member will be."
Representatives of Wynn Resorts said earlier this month that the
settlement would resolve the last of the legal matters involving
Steve Wynn, the former chairman and CEO who left the company in
2018.
"We are pleased to have resolved this long-standing legal matter
through a settlement which we believe is advantageous for the
company," Wynn Resorts said in a Thursday, Sept. 19, email. "As is
customary in such matters, our insurance has covered the majority
of the $70 million settlement, with Wynn Resorts covering $9.4
million of the total."
Loss of stock value
Attorneys for the investors said the case centered on allegedly
misleading statements made by Wynn Resorts between March 28, 2016,
and Feb. 12, 2018, weeks after media reports about the sexual
harassment scandal were published.
Steve Wynn has said he has never assaulted or harassed any
employees.
The complaint alleged defendants were aware of numerous allegations
of sexual misconduct made against Wynn over the course of several
decades and defendants repeatedly denied those allegations and
helped to cover them up. In January 2018, an article in the Wall
Street Journal reported on the alleged yearslong pattern of
misconduct by Steve Wynn, eventually leading him to resign as
chairman and CEO and prompting both the Nevada Gaming Control Board
and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to open investigations into
the company's handling of the allegations. Those events led to a
drop in Wynn Resorts' share price, which caused significant damage
to the company's shareholders.
Share prices spiraled from more than $200 a share in January 2018
to around $96 a share a year later. Currently, the stock is trading
at around $80 a share.
"This case should serve as a warning to corporations and their
officers that talk is not, in fact, cheap," partner Murielle Steven
Walsh, who led the securities class-action lawsuit, said in an
emailed statement.
"Investors care about corporate integrity and accountability, and
companies that are accused of making statements to cover up or deny
allegations of serious misconduct by executives face a potentially
steep financial reckoning." [GN]
*********
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 ***