/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241001.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 1, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 197 Headlines 212 STEAKHOUSE: Bid to Decertify Class in Martineko Tossed 3M COMPANY: Donaghue Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Taylor Files Suit in D. South Carolina ACCESS SPORTS: Lafontaine Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII AGIR ELECTRICAL: LBG Seeks Damages for Breach of Subcontract ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Strikes Wellpath's Bill of Costs ALLIED GAMING: Schuebel Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. AMAZON WEB: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Gladstone Due June 16, 2025 APPLE INC: Has Until Oct. 14 to Respond to Class Cert Bid ARROW FINANCIAL: $850,000 Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 10 ASR GROUP: Conspires to Fix Sugar Prices, Olivares Suit Says AVIS RENT A CAR: Harris Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII BANK OF AMERICA: Allowed Leave to File Sur-reply Under Seal BASF METALS: $20MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 14 BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Rutman Suit Transferred to N.D. California BELLOTA AGRISOLUTIONS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan BENTON COUNTY, AR: Summary Judgment Ruling in Farella Suit Appealed BIG TEXAN: Stringer Seeks to Certify Two Classes of Employees BLACK OPAL LLC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: DeFelippis Suit Removed to E.D. California BOYLAND AUTO: Armstrong Bid to Appoint Counsel Nixed BUFFALO BILLFOLD: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BYTEDANCE INC: Young Seeks Sealing of Unredacted Class Cert Bid BYTEDANCE INC: Young Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class CAMPING WORLD: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CEDAR FAIR: Walker Wins Bid for Class Certification CF ARCIS XII: Clapp Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data CHARLOTTE, NC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Durham Suit CHILDREN'S PLACE: Mediation in Gonzalez Suit Ongoing COLONIAL LIFE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Seawell COMME DES GARCONS: Herrera Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd COMMONWEALTH RUNNING: Jacobs Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Strickland Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida COMPEX LEGAL: Faces Muto Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info CONCORA CREDIT INC: Bilal Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan CORSAIR MEMORY: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CRUNCH LLC: Discloses Customers' Viewing Info to Meta, Jordan Says DECORA EVENT: Aguilera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages DEERE CREDIT: Cornelius Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement DESMOND BARRY: Clune Has Until Oct. 7 to File SAC DIAMONDBACK ENERGY: Court Dismisses PCRA, Webb Shareholder Suit DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response DMM SOLUTIONS: Grimmett Directed to File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 14 DRC DEMO LLC: Khan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DTIII LLC: Leon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DYNAMIC NURSING: Vidal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Ortiz Says ENDAVA PLC: Named in Mueller Securities Suit in New York Court EO PRODUCTS: Class Certification Bid Continued to Feb. 25, 2025 EVOLUTION NEW JERSEY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Tucker Says FAVORITE WORLD: Bid for Class Certification Extended to Nov. 24 FAVORITE WORLD: Minor Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action GARDAWORLD CASH: Artis Alleges Illegal Insurance Surcharges GEO GROUP: Gonzalez Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action GERBER PRODUCTS: Conry Suit Transferred to E.D. New York GERBER PRODUCTS: Lyngas Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan GLOBAL PAYMENTS: $3.6MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 11 GLOBE LIFE INC: Goodie Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII GRACE OCEAN: U.S. Slams Attempt to Limit Liability Over Disaster GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Response in Opposition Extended to Oct. 11 GUY HARVEY INC: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS: McCabe Sues Over False Representation HILY CORP: Carroll Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data HORMEL FOODS: Settles Consolidated Pork Antitrust Suit ILLINOIS BONE: Lapata Files Suit in Ill. DuPage County INFINITE HEALTH: Vriezen Files Suit in D. Montana IRON MOUNTAIN: Rimey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JARED RARDIN: Cheng Given 21 Days to Consider Withdrawing Request KINETIC EVENTS INC: Burton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KNOX COUNTY, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in JBH Suit L'ATELIER GLOBAL: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LEXISNEXIS RISK: Alkayali Sues Over Inaccurate Reporting LIBERTY MUTUAL: Powers Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana LOVESAC COMPANY: Settlement in Gutknecht Suit Wins Initial Nod LYNN UNIVERSITY: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MACY'S INC: Pontiac Dismissed from PRGERS Suit MAXIMUS INC: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Stewart Says MDL 2924: Sardina Seeks to Vacate Court's Transfer Order MICHAEL ANDREWS: Abramson Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website MICHAEL MCKINNEY: Court Dismisses Wind Class Suit NEIMAN MARCUS: Gianne Files Suit in D. Montana NESTLE USA: Foster Balks at Mislabeled Toll House Morsels NEVADA: L.W. Sues Over IDEA and ADA Violation NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN: Tay Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd NEW YORK, NY: Court OKs Bid to Certify Class & Subclasses NEW YORK, NY: Settlement Class in Zarkower Gets Certification NEWREZ LLC: Alvarez Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection NIMBLE FOR GOOD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suarez Says NY ELITE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Igartua Suit Claims OFF-WHITE LLC: Abramson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OPTAVIA LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Class Settlement Initial Approval ORACLE CORP: Amsterdam Court's Securities Suit Ruling Overturned OZONE NETWORKS: Shnayderman Slams Sale of Unregistered Securities PARTY CITY HOLDINGS: Agostino Sues Over WARN Act Violation PELICIA HALL: Alexander Loses Bid to Certify Class PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Malka Files Suit Over Inaccurate Credit Report PRO-VIGIL INC: Lopez Sues Over Overtime Compensation PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Class Cert Hearing Set for Oct. 22 RAINBOW USA INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: $9.4MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 19 SANDOZ INC: Health and Welfare Funds Sue Over Fraudulent Transfers SBS TRANSPORT: Stokes Must Show Cause Why Action Should Continue SECURITY BENEFIT: Order on Joint Status Report Entered SIPARADIGM LLC: Horn Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI & PII SKIMS BODY: Bid for Class Certification Due June 9, 2025 SKINNYCORP LLC: Faces Nunez Suit Over Deceptive Discount Practices SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Data Breach Suit in Montana Court SPACE COAST: Leyva Seeks to Certify Injunctive Relief Class SUNWARRIOR VENTURES: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SV OPCO LLC: Carter Sues to Recover Overtime Wages TEIJIN AUTOMOTIVE: Settlement in Hummel Class Gets Final Nod TEKSYSTEMS INC: Avery Bid for Partial Summary Judgment OK'd TIKTOK INC: Edwards Sues Over Illegal Spying and Manipulation TIKTOK INC: Griffith Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial TRC ENGINEERS: Euson Sues to Recover Untimely and Overtime Wages TREASURE BAY: Billups Files Suit Over Unfair Tender Offer TRELLIS RESEARCH: Harrell Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. UIPATH INC: Faces Brunozzi Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures UIPATH INC: Faces Securities Suit Over Disclosures UIPATH INC: Faces Steiner Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures UNITED HARDWARE: Website Breaches ADA, Frost Says UNITED SERVICES: Davidson Must File Updated Class Definition Notice UNIVERSAL CITY: Underpays Employees, Lawrence Suit Says VENTURA FOODS: Class Settlement in Gramstad Gets Initial Nod WALMART INC: Devane Seeks to File Class Certification Bid WASTE MANAGEMENT: O'Brien Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas WATA INC: Knight Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Classes WELLS FARGO: Cobb Sues Over Under-Payment of Interest ********* 212 STEAKHOUSE: Bid to Decertify Class in Martineko Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NINO MARTINENKO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. 212 STEAKHOUSE, INC., and NIKOLAY VOLPER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00518-JLR-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rochon entered an order adopting the Report and Recommendation (R&R) in its entirety: -- The Defendants' motion to decertify the Rule 23 class is denied. -- Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. -- Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court orders that: 1. The class be awarded unpaid minimum wages under the NYLL without a tip credit allowance in the total amount of $96,608.35; 2. The class be awarded unpaid overtime wages under the NYLL without a tip credit allowance in the total amount of $2,530.75; 3. The class be awarded unpaid spread-of-hours premiums under the NYLL where applicable in the total amount of $2,388; 4. The class be awarded liquidated damages under the NYLL in the total amount of $101,527.10; 5. Defendant Volper be held individually liable for damages under the FLSA and NYLL; 6. Plaintiff Huk's NYLL Section 195 wage notice and statement claims be dismissed for lack of standing; 7. Summary judgment be denied on the rest of the class members' NYLL Section 195 wage notice and wage statement claims; 8. The parties be ordered to meet and confer regarding next steps for addressing individualized injury with respect to the unnamed class member Section 195 claims; and 9. Prejudgment interest be awarded from June 18, 2019, at a rate of 9% on the total unpaid wages of $101,527.10. Defendants' argument for decertification hinges largely on the class's reduced size — in Defendant's view, the class has at most only 24 remaining class members and therefore does not satisfy numerosity. Defendant's calculation, however, erroneously excludes members whose notices were returned as undeliverable and deceased class members. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Lehrburger that both groups are properly counted toward a Rule 23 class. The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). 212 Steakhouse serves authentic japanese kobe beef. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QplyDv at no extra charge.[CC] 3M COMPANY: Donaghue Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Donaghue, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05303-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 23710 US Hwy A-1 Fairhope, AL 36532 Phone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Taylor Files Suit in D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case styled as James Taylor, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05301-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 25, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frederick Thurman Kuykendall, III THE KUYKENDALL GROUP LLC, ESQ. 201 East Second Street Bay Minette, AL 36507 Phone: (800) 922-8661 Email: attorneynotice@thekuykendallgroup.com ACCESS SPORTS: Lafontaine Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------ Cameron Lafontaine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACCESS SPORTS MEDICINE & ORTHOPAEDICS, PLLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00306 (D.N.H., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information1 ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (together, "Private Information") of its patients, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems on May 10, 2024 and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. On May 10, 2024, Access Sports detected unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from its systems on May 10, 2024 ("Data Breach"). As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of Defendant's patients, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including their name, Social Security number, date of birth, financial information, medical information, and health insurance information. The Defendant's investigation concluded that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and other individuals' information (together, "Patients"). The Defendant's failure to safeguard Patients' highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, New Hampshire law, and Defendant's implied contract with its Patients to safeguard their Private Information. Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received medical services from Defendant. Access Sports Medicine & Orthopaedics, PLLC, is medical provider specializing in the prevention and treatment of disorders, injuries and illness to the muscles, bones, and joints with its principle place of business in New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam H. Weintraub, Esq. WEINTRAUB LAW, LLC 170 Commerce Way, Suite 200 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Phone: (603) 212-1785 Email: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com AGIR ELECTRICAL: LBG Seeks Damages for Breach of Subcontract ------------------------------------------------------------ LEEDING BUILDERS GROUP LLC, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all persons entitled to share in the trust funds received by the defendants pursuant to Lien Law Article 3-A in connection with the construction at 35-15 19th Avenue, Queens, New York 11105 a/k/a Wildflower Studios, Plaintiff v. AGIR ELECTRICAL, LTD. d/b/a PINNACLE ELECTRICAL, and JOHN DOE 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 719264/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Sept. 17, 2024) is an action against Pinnacle seeking damages arising from multiple breaches of a Subcontract Agreement between LBG and Pinnacle, pursuant to which Pinnacle agreed to provide certain electrical Work in connection with the construction of Wildflower Studios. Wildflower Studios is a purpose built, seven-story, 760,000 square-foot state-of-the art vertical media production facility located in Astoria, Queens. Plaintiff LBG served as a Construction Manager under contract with WF Industrial IV LLC, the Owner of the Project, to bring the TV and film production facility to a successful completion. To that end, LBG entered into the Subcontract with Pinnacle pursuant to which Pinnacle, among other things, was to furnish and install a complete base building electrical system, provide a complete power distribution system, and to provide low voltage cabling with associated network infrastructure, parts and "smarts." Starting as early as mid-2023, Pinnacle failed adequately to staff sufficient workforce necessary for completion of its work under the Subcontract. As a result, Pinnacle missed numerous critical milestone deadlines, ultimately delaying Project completion and interfering with the work of other trades, says the complaint. More disturbingly, LBG has discovered that much of the work performed by Pinnacle was so incomplete and/or defective that it actually created dangerous and potentially life threatening conditions, which Pinnacle often buried in walls and ceilings closed up by other trades, adds the complaint. LBG brings this action seeking damages as a result of Pinnacle's multiple breaches of the Subcontract and its intentional and grossly negligent tortious malfeasance. In addition, LBG seeks termination of the lien filed by Pinnacle against the Project (which LBG was required to bond at great expense), because Pinnacle has willfully exaggerated that lien. Agir Electrical, Ltd., d/b/a Pinnacle Electrical, is a New York-based construction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard De Palma, Esq. Anthony J. Carl, Esq. LEEDING BUILDERS GROUP LLC 300 Madison Avenue, 27th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 908-3969 Facsimile: (212) 344-6101 E-mail: Richard.DePalma@ThompsonHine.com ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Strikes Wellpath's Bill of Costs ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al., v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to strike Wellpath's bill of costs. While the Court granted Wellpath's motion for summary judgment because the Plaintiffs failed to offer evidence creating a dispute of fact as to their Monell claims against Wellpath, Plaintiffs' claims were not "frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation." To the contrary, as the Court noted, "while the evidence the Plaintiffs have proffered might have created a dispute of fact as to whether the care they were provided on particular occasions fell below the standard of care," they chose to pursue Monell claims rather than individualized claims and the evidence did not create a dispute of fact as to their policy and practice claims. While Plaintiffs did not ultimately prevail, their claims were not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. The Plaintiffs, current and former detainees at Santa Rita Jail, filed this action bringing conditions of confinement claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The Plaintiffs named as defendants Alameda County, who oversees the Jail; Wellpath, the third-party contractor who provides medical services at the Jail; and Aramark, the third-party contractor who provides food services at the Jail. The Court denied class certification of Plaintiffs' claims against Wellpath and Aramark, and in July 2024, the Court granted Wellpath's motion for summary judgment. Wellpath subsequently filed a bill of costs totaling $33,537.70 and Plaintiffs filed the now pending motion to strike the bill of costs, which Wellpath has not opposed. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vGpnJz at no extra charge.[CC] ALLIED GAMING: Schuebel Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Gaming & Entertainment Inc., et al. The case is styled as Timothy G. Schuebel, and others similarly situated v. Allied Gaming & Entertainment Inc., Chi Zhao Guanzhou Qin, Jingsheng Lu, Mao Sun, Yangyang Li, Yuanfei Qu, Yushi Guo, Case No. 2024-0996-PAF (Del. Chancery Ct., Sept. 25, 2024). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Allied Gaming & Entertainment Inc. -- https://ir.alliedgaming.gg/ -- operates as a public esports and entertainment company worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Bennett, Esq. Phone: (302) 984-3813 Fax: (302) 652-5379 AMAZON WEB: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Gladstone Due June 16, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA GLADSTONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00491-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order setting the following case schedule through class certification: Event Date Fact discovery to commence July 16, 2024 AWS to answer Second Amended Complaint Aug. 13, 2024 Last day to add parties or amend the Dec. 13, 2024 pleadings Fact discovery to close May 16, 2025 Plaintiff's motion for class June 16, 2025 certification and expert reports regarding class certification issues to be filed Defendant's response to class certification Sept. 15, 2025 motion and expert reports regarding class certification issues to be filed Plaintiff's reply to class certification Oct. 13, 2025 and rebuttal expert reports regarding class certification issues to be filed Close of expert discovery regarding class Nov. 13, 2025 certification Hearing on motion for class certification Dec. 11, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. on Amazon Web is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides on-demand cloud computing platforms and APIs to individuals, companies, and governments, on a metered, pay-as-you-go basis. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aSUzII at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Has Until Oct. 14 to Respond to Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Costa v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01353-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that: (1) Apple's deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion shall be Oct. 14, 2024; (2) Plaintiffs' deadline to reply shall be Oct. 30, 2024; and (3) the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion shall remain on Nov. 6, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification on Aug. 29, 2024, and noticed the Motion for hearing on Nov. 6, 2024. The Parties have met and conferred and agreed to modify the schedule for opposition and reply briefs so that Apple's deadline to respond to the Motion is Oct. 14, 2024, and Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply is Oct. 30, 2024. The proposed stipulated extension will not alter the date of the hearing currently scheduled for Nov. 6, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. The proposed stipulated extension will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court order. This stipulation is without prejudice to any defense Apple might assert in this action. Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MYGeMn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel S. Brome, Esq. Michele R. Fisher, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: dbrome@nka.com fisher@nka.com - and - Loren B. Donnell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Rd. Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 E-mail: ldonnell@shavitzlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Theane Evangelis, Esq. Cynthia Chen Mcternan, Esq. Megan Cooney, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: TBoutrous@gibsondunn.com TEvangelis@gibsondunn.com CMcTernan@gibsondunn.com MCooney@gibsondunn.com ARROW FINANCIAL: $850,000 Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announced that the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Arrow Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: AROW): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ARROW FINANCIAL CORPORATION SECURITIES BETWEEN AUGUST 6, 2022 AND MAY 12, 2023, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on January 10, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Anne M. Nardacci, at the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, Courtroom 6, 445 Broadway, Albany, New York 12207, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for the sum of $850,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of no more than 33.4% of the Settlement Amount plus interest, reimbursement of litigation expenses of no more than $85,000 plus interest, and awards to Plaintiffs of no more than $4,000, in aggregate, from the Settlement Amount should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 7, 2024 ("Stipulation"). Lead Counsel has also applied for up to $125,000 to pay for Administrative Costs. The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means. The Court appointed Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel to represent you and the other Settlement Class Members. However, you have the right to retain your own counsel and the right to appear at the Settlement Hearing through counsel of your choosing. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Arrow Financial Corporation ("Arrow") securities between August 6, 2022 and May 12, 2023, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement. As further described in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action, whether or not you make a claim, unless you request exclusion from the Settlement Class. If you have not received the Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by visiting www.strategicclaims.net/Arrow/ or by contacting the Claims Administrator at info@strategicclaims.net or toll-free at (866) 274-4004. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form to the Claims Administrator in the form and manner detailed in the Notice so that it is postmarked or submitted electronically no later than January 17, 2025. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than December 20, 2024, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and awards to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than December 20, 2024, by each of the following: CLERK OF THE COURT: United States District Court Northern District of New York 445 Broadway Albany, New York 12207 LEAD COUNSEL: Brenda Szydlo POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Ave., 20th Fl. New York, NY 10016 DEFENSE COUNSEL: William J. Sushon O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Ave. of the Americas, 17th Fl. New York, NY 10019 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs: Brenda Szydlo POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY, 10016 (212) 661-1100 bszydlo@pomlaw.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: August 26, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ASR GROUP: Conspires to Fix Sugar Prices, Olivares Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ FRANCISCO OLIVARES, THOMAS TOMBARELLO, and DONALD FRIEDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC.; DOMINO FOODS, INC.; MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY; UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE f/k/a UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION; COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.; and RICHARD WISTISEN, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-03648 (D. Minn., September 13, 2024) seeks redress for injury and damages caused by Defendants' conspiracy to fix prices of granulated sugar in the United States from at least as early as January 1, 2019, through the date by which the anticompetitive effects of its violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act shall have ceased, but in any case no earlier than the present. Beginning at least as early as January 1, 2019, Defendants conspired to fix and artificially inflate the prices of granulated sugar sold in the United States, asserts the complaint. To implement their price-fixing conspiracy, the Defendants exchanged detailed, competitively sensitive, non-public information about granulated sugar prices, capacity, sales volume, supply, and demand. Among the victims of the conspiracy are U.S. consumers of granulated sugar, such as Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and members of the Class would have paid less for granulated sugar than they did during the Class Period. The Plaintiffs bring this action for redress of the injury and damages that they and members of the Class have suffered and continue to suffer by reason of Defendants' continuing violations of law. ASR Group International, Inc. is a privately held Florida corporation and global producer and seller of granulated sugar based in West Palm Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Peter St. Phillip, Jr., Esq. Sitso Bediako, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Nicole A. Veno, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com pstphillip@lowey.com sbediako@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com AVIS RENT A CAR: Harris Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Harris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC, and AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-09364 (D.N.J., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought 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 (collectively "PII" or "Private Information") from hackers. On September 5, 2024, Avis filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Offices of the Attorney General in both Maine and California. On September 4, 2024, Avis also sent out data breach letters ("Notice Letter") to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. Based on the Notice Letter, on August 5, 2024, Avis discovered that "an unauthorized third party gained access to one of our business applications." In response, the company launched an investigation. The Avis investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files between August 3, 2024, and August 6, 2024 (the "Data Breach"). There has been no assurance offered by Avis that all personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed, or that Avis have adequately enhanced its data security practices sufficient to avoid a similar breach of its network in the future. Therefore, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Avis's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, says the complaint. The Plaintiff became a customer and was required to provide it with substantial amounts of his Private Information. Avis 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 Phone: (646) 357-1732 Email: tbean@sirillp.com ddisabato@sirillp.com - and - Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. M. Anderson Berry, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 Email: gharoutunian@justice4you.com aberry@justice4you.com BANK OF AMERICA: Allowed Leave to File Sur-reply Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE TRISTAN, AVANTIKA AHUJA, and PHILLIP MYERS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and EARLY WARNING SERVICES, LLC D/B/A ZELLEPAY.COM, Case No. 8:22-cv-01183-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order granting in its entirety, Defendant's application for leave to file under seal motion for leave to file sur-reply in response to new arguments raised in the Plaintiffs' class certification reply brief. Bank of America shall file the following documents under partial seal: Document to be Sealed Portion to Seal Motion for leave to file sur-reply in Partial Seal Response to new arguments raised in Plaintiffs' Class Certification reply Brief Exhibit 1- sur-reply in response to new Partial Seal Arguments raised in the Plaintiffs' Class Certification reply brief Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, and online banking. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=01Yycu at no extra charge.[CC] BASF METALS: $20MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- If you sold platinum or palladium futures contracts traded on NYMEX, sold platinum or palladium call options traded on NYMEX, or bought platinum or palladium put options traded on NYMEX from January 1, 2008 through November 30, 2014, you may be affected by a pending class action settlement and entitled to a portion of the settlement fund. This Summary Notice is to alert you to a proposed settlement totaling $20 million reached with BASF Metals Limited ("BASF Metals"); Goldman Sachs International ("Goldman Sachs"); HSBC Bank USA, N.A. ("HSBC"); and ICBC Standard Bank Plc (f/k/a Standard Bank Plc ("ICBC Standard") (together, the "Defendants"). All Defendants deny the allegations in the Action. By entering into the Settlement, the Defendants have not admitted to any such liability, fault, or wrongdoing, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement or this Summary Notice shall be construed as such an admission. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") authorized this Notice. The Court has appointed the lawyers listed below to represent the Settlement Class as Class Counsel in this Action: Gregory S. AsciollaDiCello Levitt LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Michael Dell'AngeloBerger Montague PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Who Is a Member of the Settlement Class? The proposed Settlement Class includes: All persons or entities who during the period from January 1, 2008 through November 30, 2014 either (i) sold platinum or palladium futures contracts in transactions conducted in whole or in part on NYMEX; (ii) sold platinum or palladium call options in transactions conducted in whole or in part on NYMEX; or (iii) bought platinum or palladium put options in transactions conducted in whole or in part on NYMEX. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their employees, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, and alleged co-conspirators, whether or not named in the Complaint, and the U.S. government; provided, however, that Investment Vehicles shall not be excluded from the definition of "Settlement Class". Also excluded is the Judge presiding over this action, his or her law clerks, spouse, and any person within the third degree of relationship living in the Judge's household and the spouse of such a person. The capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice, if not defined herein, are defined in the detailed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Class Members' Rights ("Notice") and the settlement agreement ("Settlement Agreement"), which are available at www.NymexPlatinumPalladiumFixingSettlement.com. If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class, you can get more information, including the detailed Notice, at www.NymexPlatinumPalladiumFixingSettlement.com or by calling toll-free 1-877-411-4791 (if calling from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-414-921-2341). What Is This Lawsuit About and What Does the Settlement Provide? This lawsuit alleges that the Defendants engaged in anticompetitive manipulation of benchmark rates that affected the market for NYMEX platinum and palladium futures and options. To settle the claims in this lawsuit and without admitting any liability, fault, or wrongdoing, Defendants collectively agreed to pay $20 million (the "Settlement Fund") in cash—for the benefit of the Settlement Class. If the Court gives final approval to the Settlement, the case will come to an end. Will I Get a Payment? If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you will be eligible to file a Proof of Claim and Release Form. The amount of your payment will be determined by a Plan of Allocation. Details about the Plan of Allocation are available at www.NymexPlatinumPalladiumFixingSettlement.com or by calling toll-free 1-877-411-4791 (if calling from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-414-921-2341). A date for distribution of the Settlement Fund has not been set. Proof of Claim and Release Forms must be submitted by February 13, 2025. What Are My Rights? If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you will release certain legal rights against the Defendants, as explained in the detailed Notice and Settlement Agreement, which are available at www.NymexPlatinumPalladiumFixingSettlement.com. If you do not want to take part in the Settlement, you must opt out by December 31, 2024. You may object to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or application for an award of attorneys' fees, payment of litigation costs and expenses, and/or service awards for Plaintiffs. If you want to object, you must do so by December 31, 2024. Information on how to opt out or object is contained in the detailed Notice, which is available at www.NymexPlatinumPalladiumFixingSettlement.com. When Is the Fairness Hearing? The Court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, Courtroom 12C, on January 14, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. to consider whether to finally approve the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees, payment of litigation costs and expenses, and any service awards for the Plaintiffs. The Court reserves the right to conduct the final fairness hearing remotely. You or your lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but you do not have to. Any changes to the time and place of the Fairness Hearing, or other deadlines, or the process for attending remotely, will be posted to www.NymexPlatinumPalladiumFixingSettlement.com as soon as practicable. For more information, call toll-free 1-877-411-4791 (if calling from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-414-921-2341) or visit www.NymexPlatinumPalladiumFixingSettlement.com. **** Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for information about the Settlement. **** BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Rutman Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeanne Rutman, Robert Rutman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayer Cropscience, LLC formerly known as: Monsanto, Case No. 1:23-cv-00664 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Sept. 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-06751-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. Bayer -- https://www.bayer.com/en/ -- is a global enterprise with core competencies in the life science fields of healthcare and nutrition.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared Thomas Brankamp, Esq. BURNSIDE BRANKAMP LAW, LLC 1118 Hutchins St. Portsmouth, OH 45662 Phone: (740) 354-4878 Fax: (740) 354-6038 Email: jared@burnsidelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John Q. Lewis, Esq. Rachel Nicole Byrnes, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS - CLEVELAND 950 Main Avenue, Ste. 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 696-5325 Fax: (216) 592-5009 Email: john.lewis@tuckerellis.com rachel.byrnes@tuckerellis.com BELLOTA AGRISOLUTIONS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Breackenridge, v. Bellota Agrisolutions And Tools USA LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-04137-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qE2Nc3 at no extra charge.[CC] BENTON COUNTY, AR: Summary Judgment Ruling in Farella Suit Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------------- DISTRICT JUDGE A. J. ANGLIN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' summary judgment bid in the lawsuit entitled Abigail Farella, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. District Judge A.J. Anglin, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-05121-TLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The Plaintiffs filed this action against the Defendants for alleged violation of their constitutional right to attorney representation by failing to timely appoint counsel before the Plaintiffs' bail was set. On May 1, 2024, the Plaintiffs and Judge Anglin filed their motions for summary judgment, which the Court granted and denied, respectively, through an Order entered by Judge Timothy L. Brooks. The Plaintiffs have asked the Court to find as a matter of law that indigent persons have a right to have appointed counsel present at bail hearings under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that Judge Anglin's bail hearing procedure violates that right. They seek a declaratory judgment to that effect and a permanent injunction requiring that indigent persons must have appointed counsel present at bail hearings in Judge Anglin's court. Judge Anglin's motion, on the hand, asked the Court to find the opposite -- that the Plaintiffs do not have a right to counsel at bail hearings under the Sixth Amendment; that he did not violate the Plaintiffs' Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment rights; and that his decision setting the Plaintiffs' bonds is entitled to judicial immunity. Judge Anglin asserted that he should be dismissed from this lawsuit. According to Judge Brooks's ruling, the balance of harms weighs heavily towards the Plaintiffs and they have shown success on the merits. The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was, thus, granted as to their prayer for injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned Abigail Farella, et al. v. District Judge A.J. Anglin, Case No. 24-2914, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on September 20, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on October 30, 2024; -- Appellant's Brief is due on October 30, 2024; and -- Appellee's Brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ABIGAIL FARELLA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jo Alison Lee, Esq. Norman Douglas Norwood, Esq. NORWOOD & NORWOOD P.O. Box 1960 Rogers, AR 72757 Telephone: (479) 636-1262 (479) 361-1010 Defendants-Appellants DISTRICT JUDGE A. J. ANGLIN, et al. are represented by: Justin Brascher, Esq. Christine Ann Cryer, Esq. John Otho Payne, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 200 Catlett-Prien Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 682-2007 BIG TEXAN: Stringer Seeks to Certify Two Classes of Employees ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Theresa Stringer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), V. Big Texan Steak Ranch Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00181-Z-BR (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), to certify and send court-authorize notice to the proposed collective of similarly situated employees defined as: Server Collective Members: "All current and former employees who worked at least one shift as a server for the Defendant at any time within the three (3) year period since this Complaint was filed and were paid a direct cash wage of less than minimum wage;" Bartender Collective Members: "All current and former employees who worked at least one shift as a bartender for the Defendant at any time within the three (3) year period since this Complaint was filed and were paid a direct cash wage of less than minimum wage." Finally, the Plaintiffs request all such other relief to which they may be justly entitled. The Plaintiffs have met the burden by showing that Plaintiffs and the proposed collective are "sufficiently similarly situated such that this case should proceed on a collective basis[]" and therefore, entitled to receive notice of their right to join this action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This action challenges Defendant's common policy that utilizes servers and bartenders to perform non-tipped job duties unrelated to their tipped occupation at a at a subminimum hourly rate at it dining establishment—Big Texan. Plaintiffs worked as servers and bartenders for Defendant and were all paid a direct subminimum hourly wage of less than $7.25 per hour and, in violation of the FLSA, were illegally (1) required to contribute a portion of their tips to a tip pool that Defendant cannot show the tips pooled were distributed solely among customarily and regularly tipped employees; (2) required to perform non-tipped work unrelated to their tipped occupation (i.e., "dual jobs") before, during, and at the end of their shifts at a subminimum hourly rate; and (3) and required to pay for mandatory uniforms, tools, and other non- 203(m) items. The Defendant operates a steakhouse restaurant and motel located in Amarillo, Texas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=waAvVm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 840-5102 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com BLACK OPAL LLC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BLACK OPAL, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07243 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's www.blackopalbeauty.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Black Opal Beauty is renowned for its comprehensive range of skincare and makeup products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: DeFelippis Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Anthony DeFelippis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., and Bloomingdale's.com, LLC, Case No. 2484CV02059-BLS1 was removed from the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Sept. 24, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-12451. The Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, a claim for violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Privacy in Commercial Transactions Act ("CPICTA") for requiring consumers who purchase products online for delivery to their home from Defendants' website to provide an email address to complete their credit card transaction. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants use the email address to send unwanted marketing materials. This is all in alleged violation of Massachusetts General Laws for which Plaintiff seeks not less than the minimum statutory damage award of $25 under Massachusetts General Laws per violation.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Edward D. Shoulkin, Esq. Derek M. Gillis, Esq. BARTON GILMAN LLP 75 Federal Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617.654.8200 Fax: 617.482.5350 Email: eshoulkin@bglaw.com dgillis@bglaw.com BOYLAND AUTO: Armstrong Bid to Appoint Counsel Nixed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LOUIS ARMSTRONG, v. BOYLAND AUTO BGMC, LLC, GENERAL MOTORS, KUNES BUICK GMC, AUTOMOTIVE EXPERTS LLC, NATIONAL BUSINESS BROKERS, DORIAN BOYLAND, and KAUFMAN DOLOWICH, Case No. 2:24-cv-00765-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order granting the Plaintiff William Louis Armstrong's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court further enter an order that Plaintiff William Louis Armstrong's: -- request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice; -- request for designation of interim counsel, is denied without prejudice; -- request for designation of a guardian ad litem or next friend, is denied without prejudice; -- request for an order mandating service of process, is denied; -- renewed motion for a stay of proceedings, is granted in part. In June 2024, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued the Defendants for violations of both state and federal law. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M9IjwD at no extra charge.[CC] BUFFALO BILLFOLD: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE BUFFALO BILLFOLD COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-07242 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's www.buffalobillfoldcompany.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BYTEDANCE INC: Young Seeks Sealing of Unredacted Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BYTEDANCE INC. and TIKTOK INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to file under seal unredacted versions of motion for class certification and exhibits The Plaintiff disputes that Defendants and non-parties can meet the necessary standards to justify sealing, but the Defendants and non-parties have yet to offer any explanation for their position. The Plaintiff reserves the right to respond to the Defendants on this issue, should the Court permit. The Plaintiff Young brings this administrative motion pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5 to file under seal an unredacted copy of his motion for class certification, and portions of the Declaration of Steven N. Williams and exhibits. The Plaintiff does not believe that these documents merit sealing under governing standards in the Ninth Circuit and Northern District, but the Defendants and non-parties have designed some of these things as confidential pursuant to the protective order in this case, and thus Plaintiff must file this motion. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A557UE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven N. Williams, Esq. Kai'Ree K. Howard, Esq. STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C. 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 697-1507 Facsimile: (415) 230-5310 E-mail: swillliams@stevenwilliams.com khoward@stevenwilliams.com BYTEDANCE INC: Young Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG and ASHLEY VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BYTEDANCE INC., and TIKTOK INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Dec. 19, 2024, for an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 certifying a class and appointing lead counsel. The Plaintiff seeks to certify this class: "All people in the United States who performed content moderation Work (including Trainers and QAs) for TikTok between March 24, 2020 and the present and who were not directly employed by TikTok." Excluded from the proposed class are Defendants, Defendants' employees, and the Court and its staff. The Plaintiff asserts class claims under California law on behalf of content moderators for negligent exercise of retained control against Bytedance, Inc. and TikTok, Inc., California corporations which operate TikTok. Mr. Young worked for Atrium. He had roles including R1 review and QA. In these roles he was repeatedly exposed to harmful explicit graphic content. ByteDance is a Chinese internet technology company headquartered in Haidian, Beijing and incorporated in the Cayman Islands. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N0TAvw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven N. Williams, Esq. Kai'Ree K. Howard, Esq. STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C. 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 697-1509 Facsimile: (415) 230-5310 E-mail: swilliams@stevenwilliamslaw.com khoward@stevenwilliamslaw.com CAMPING WORLD: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-03737 (D. Minn., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (www.campingworld.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). As a consequence of Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content – content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiffs would like to, intend to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others who are similarly situated, seek relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its Website accessible to Plaintiffs and the putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices, and procedures, the details of which are more fully described below, to ensure that Defendant's Website remains accessible in the future. Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class are blind and low-vision individuals and are reliant upon screen reader technology to navigate the Internet. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CEDAR FAIR: Walker Wins Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moneva Walker, et al., v. Cedar Fair, L.P., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02176-JGC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge James Carr entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification subject to the amended class and sub-class definitions: -- Ohio Consumer Protection Class This class asserts an Ohio Consumer Practices Act ("OCSPA") claim. This claim alleges that Cedar Fair's ads failed to comply with Ohio law relative to notice of exclusion and disclaimers. As a result of limited access due to COVID-19 related shutdowns, a 2020 unlimited season pass purchaser would have expected a refund of the difference between the pass price of the 2020 expected season and the value of the 2020 season the purchaser actually received. The OCSPA sub-classes are: (a) Regular Summer/Season Pass holders to any single park, with or without any "add-ons;" (b) Gold Pass holders to any single park, with or without any add- ons; and (c) Platinum Pass holders. -- Equitable Claims Class This class asserts unjust enrichment and money had and received claims on behalf of passholders to parks that never opened in 2020. These parks are California's Great America, Canada's Wonderland, and Valleyfair. The claims allege that it was unjust for Cedar Fair to take the money that passholders paid for 2020 passes but provide no bargained-for consideration in return. Plaintiffs in this class, where parks were completely closed, would be entitled to a full refund. The Equitable Claims sub-classes are: (a) Summer/Season Pass holders to California's Great America, Canada's Wonderland, or Valleyfair park, with or without any add-ons; and (b) Gold Pass holders to California's Great America, Canada’s Wonderland, or Valleyfair park, with or without any add-ons. Platinum pass purchasers are excluded from this class. Cedar Fair provides entertainment facilities. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bRKs57 at no extra charge.[CC] CF ARCIS XII: Clapp Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Clapp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CF ARCIS XII, LLC d/b/a ARCIS GOLF, Case No. 3:24-cv-02421-N (N.D. Tex., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII")" about its current and former employees and customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' and customers' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former employees' and customers' private information was exactly that--private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. The Defendant is "the premier operator of nearly 70 private, resort, and public golf clubs in the United States."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: 214/744-3000 Fax: 214/744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CHARLOTTE, NC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Durham Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER NICOLE DURHAM, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Case No. 3:21-cv-00638-RJC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert Conrad Jr. entered an order that: 1. Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, are denied; 2. Plaintiff's motion to certify class is granted; and 3. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted. In sum, the Court finds Defendant's argument that it is not a "person" subject to suit under Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) unavailing. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Because Plaintiff has shown a violation of DPPA as a matter of law, she, and those similarly situated, are entitled to statutory damages. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Accordingly, the Court limits the class definition such that only those with a "motor vehicle record" disclosed are part of the class. The class is defined as follows: "Those (1) who were listed as North Carolina-licensed drivers on DMV-349s completed by CMPD officers within the Class Period [Nov. 30, 2017–June 30, 2018]; (2) whose name appears on a Farrin Spreadsheet; and (3) the Same Address Box for the person is checked "Yes" on the DMV-349. The Plaintiff has established the requirements for class certification under Rule 23 for the class, as defined by the Court, and subclass which consists of all members of the class whose personal information was auto-populated onto a DMV-349. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is granted, and the class is certified. On Nov. 30, 2021, the Plaintiff Heather Nicole Durham filed this putative class action. On Oct. 13, 2022, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Cayer's Memorandum & Recommendation. The case arises from the alleged improper disclosure of DMV-349 reports from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) Records Division that contained the personal information of Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Charlotte is a major city and commercial hub in North Carolina. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=83qaGQ at no extra charge.[CC] CHILDREN'S PLACE: Mediation in Gonzalez Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- The Children's Place, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2024, that the parties in "Gabriela Gonzalez v. The Children's Place, Inc., a purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, participated in mediation proceedings on November 15, 2023 and February 9, 2024. The parties agreed to further discuss settlement options in May 2024, which occurred without resolution. In late May, due to the judge's retirement, the Gonzalez action was transferred and reassigned to a different judge. Deadlines were reset, including the company's motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2024, Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. advised that it would be pausing its administration of the claims until the parties resolve their dispute over which set of arbitration terms apply to the case. The plaintiff alleged that the company had falsely advertised discounts that do not exist, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Laws, False Advertising Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the plaintiff did not oppose, and the court granted the motion on August 17, 2022, staying the case pending the outcome of the arbitration. The demand for arbitration was filed on October 4, 2022, in connection with the individual claim of the plaintiff. A mass arbitration firm associated with plaintiff's counsel then conducted an advertising campaign for claimants to conduct a mass arbitration. In part, to avoid the mass arbitration, the parties stipulated to return the original plaintiff's claim to court to proceed as a class action. Accordingly, the arbitration would not be proceeding and the company's response to the original plaintiff's complaint in court was filed on July 20, 2023. On August 16, 2023, however, the company began to receive notices regarding an initial tranche of approximately 1,300 individual demands that were filed with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. as part of a related mass arbitration claim. The Children's Place, Inc. and its subsidiaries operate an omni-channel children's specialty portfolio of brands with a digital-first operating model. Its global retail and wholesale network includes two digital storefronts, more than 500 stores in North America, wholesale marketplaces and distribution in 16 countries through six international franchise partners. COLONIAL LIFE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Seawell ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY R. SEAWELL, III, et al., v. COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO., Case No. 1:22-cv-00278-TFM-MU (S.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Terry Moorer entered an order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment. In light of Martinez-Mendoza, the Plaintiffs are ordered to submit supplemental briefing to the Court on or before Oct. 21, 2024, as to whether they intend to pursue certification and to address whether an actual case or controversy exists between the parties. The Defendant is ordered to respond to Plaintiff's supplemental briefing on or before Oct. 28, 2024. Because the contract is unambiguous, the Court does not reach the application of the principle of contra proferentum. It is clear from the language of the contract that that a benefit is paid for the day the prescription is filled, not for each day the prescription is taken. Thus, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is due to be granted. The Plaintiffs filed this breach of contract action on July 15, 2022, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated policyholders, seeking money damages and declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the meaning of the pertinent provision in their supplemental cancer insurance policy. On March 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. The Plaintiffs purchased a supplemental cancer policy from Colonial beginning in 2002. The Policy provides benefits for oral chemotherapy drugs. Colonial Life offers disability, accident, life, cancer, critical illness and hospital confinement insurance plans in 49 states. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CPLBE9 at no extra charge.[CC] COMME DES GARCONS: Herrera Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIEL HERRERA, CURTIS HENNAGER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DANIEL ABBOTT, ELIZABETH AMMERMAN, AMIR AZARCON, SEAN CONWAY, BLAKE MARTIN, MADISON MURPHY, CARLIN ROLLENHAGEN, WINSTON TOLLIVER, DAVID UNICH, DYLAN WARMACK, FNAN YSAHAK, individually, v. COMME DES GARCONS, LTD., ET AL., Case No. 1:21-cv-04929-VEC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice. 1. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Court conditionally certifies the Collective, which is comprised of sales, floor, and assistant floor managers who worked at DSMNY on or after June 3, 2018. 2. By Wednesday, Oct. 9, 2024, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the Court-ordered changes to the Proposed Notice discussed in this Opinion & Order and submit a revised, redlined notice for the Court’s review and approval. 3. By Wednesday, Oct. 9, 2024, Defendants shall produce to the Plaintiffs, for members of the Collective, the following information: (i) name; (ii) last known mailing address; (iii) last known telephone number; (iv) email address if known; and (v) dates of employment. 4. Once approved by the Court, the notice and consent form (the "Notice") shall be mailed and sent via text message to all potential members of the Collective, who must opt-in to this action within 60 days of the date of distribution of the Notice. 5. Plaintiffs' request for equitable tolling is DENIED without prejudice to any individual plaintiff's ability to request tolling on a showing that tolling applies to that plaintiff's particular circumstances. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close ECF No. 117. The Plaintiffs allege that they worked at least eighteen hours of overtime each week, for which Defendants failed to pay them overtime wages. The Plaintiffs filed this action on June 3, 2021. On Feb. 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved for certification of a collective under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On Aug. 12, 2022, Judge Caproni granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Overtime Claims for failure to state a claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Wage Notice and Wage Statement Claims. Comme des Garcons is a French fashion company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PhcYcX at no extra charge.[CC] COMMONWEALTH RUNNING: Jacobs Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valeria Jacobs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COMMONWEALTH RUNNING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06759 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's www.commonwealthrunning.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Strickland Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Medical Group. The case is styled as Christina Strickland, individually, and behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Medical Group, Case No. 0:24-cv-61780-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Community Medical Group -- https://www.communitymedicalgroup.com/en/ -- is one of the largest, most recognized and respected providers of Medicaid and Medicare health services in Miami-Dade County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com COMPEX LEGAL: Faces Muto Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ MARCELO MUTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPEX LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01975 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 13, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information and protected health information, also referred as private information, of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Classes, where Plaintiff provided his private information indirectly to Defendant for insurance claims or litigation. On or around April 17, 2024, Compex discovered suspicious activity on its network. Compex determined that on April 9, 2024, an unauthorized actor downloaded files off its system, which contained the private information of Compex customers. The private information intruders accessed and infiltrated from Defendant's systems included, at the very least names, dates of birth, financial account information, medical record numbers, Social Security numbers, medical information, credit card information, and security codes. As a result of the data breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the private information of its customers, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, was stolen. Instead, Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard its current and former customers' private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. The Defendant's woefully inadequate data security measures made the data breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence, says the suit. Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seek to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries they inflicted on Plaintiff and Class Members due to their impermissibly inadequate data security measures, and to seek injunctive relief to ensure the implementation of security measures to protect the Private Information that remains in Defendant's possession. Compex Legal Services, Inc. provides medical record retrieval services for law firms and insurance carriers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com CONCORA CREDIT INC: Bilal Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concora Credit, Inc. The case is styled as Ahmad Bilal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Concora Credit, Inc. also known as: Genesis FS Card Services, Case No. 2:24-cv-12502-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich., Sept. 24, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Concora Credit -- https://about.concoracredit.com/ -- provides consumer financing options for merchants and service providers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com CORSAIR MEMORY: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CORSAIR MEMORY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07236 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's www.originpc.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com CRUNCH LLC: Discloses Customers' Viewing Info to Meta, Jordan Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KRISTI JORDAN v. CRUNCH, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07118 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2024) seeks to redress Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing Plaintiff's and its other customers' identities and the titles of prerecorded video materials to which they have purchased access to Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. Over the past two years, the Defendant has systematically transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its customers' personally identifying video viewing information to Meta using a snippet of programming code called the "Meta Pixel," which Defendant installed and configured on its www.crunchplus.com website, the Plaintiff contends. The information Defendant disclosed (and continues to disclose) to Meta via the Meta Pixel includes the customer's Facebook ID and the title of the specific prerecorded video material that each of its customers watched on its Website. The Plaintiff has never consented, agreed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Defendant to disclose her Private Viewing Information to Meta. In fact, the Defendant has never even provided Plaintiff with written notice of its practices of disclosing its customers’ Private Viewing Information to third parties such as Meta, the suit adds. The Plaintiff has purchased a monthly subscription to Defendant's Website which provides access to prerecorded video materials. The Plaintiff provided her name, email address, and home address in association with the purchase of this subscription. Crunch is a health club chain that leads the industry in fusing fitness and entertainment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone:(305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com tsomes@hedinllp.com DECORA EVENT: Aguilera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Abel Martinez Aguilera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Decora Event Rentals, LLC, Imperial Party LLC dba Imperial Event Rentals, and Gerardo Machado, Case No. 1:24-cv-23673-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 24, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as well as any related state law claims, for Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages owed. The Plaintiff worked overtime (i.e., more than 40 hours per week) for Defendants every week during the relevant time period. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff any additional pay for overtime for hours Plaintiff performed each week that he worked during the relevant time period. Instead, Defendants paid Plaintiff its hourly rate (i.e., "straight time") for these overtime hours of work hour they recorded in the company's timekeeping system, which were overtime hours. The Defendants paid all similarly situated employees in the same manner. By engaging in this pay practice, Defendants deprived employees of their right under the FLSA to receive time-and-a-half pay for all their overtime hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working with Defendants in March 1, 2021, until November 6, 2022. Decora Event Rentals, LLC, is a business that is located, headquartered, and conducts business in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Schlade JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, #300 Chicago, IL 60646 Phone: 773-550-3775 Email: dschlade@justicialaboral.com DEERE CREDIT: Cornelius Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN CORNELIUS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. DEERE CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00025-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff Cornelius asks the Court to enter an order: -- preliminarily approving the settlement and enter the proposed order submitted by the parties, -- appointing him as class representative, and -- appointing his counsel as Class Counsel. The Agreement defines a settlement class under Rule 23(b)(3) comprised of: "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Deere Credit Services, Inc. placed a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a Deere Credit Services, Inc. customer or accountholder, (3) in connection with which Deere Credit Services, Inc. used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from Feb. 2, 2020 through June 25, 2024." The Agreement requires DCSI to pay $1.5 million into a non-reversionary common fund from which participating Settlement Class Members will receive payments. Participating Settlement Class Members are expected to receive at least $2,500 each—a tremendous result by any measure. In exchange, Settlement Class Members will release certain claims under the TCPA against DCSI. Not only does the settlement constitute an outstanding result whereby participating Settlement Class Members stand to receive thousands of dollars each, but no settlement funds will revert to DCSI. Mr. Cornelius and Class Counsel respectfully submit that the settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. This is especially so in light of the substantial risks and uncertainties of protracted litigation. Accordingly, Mr. Cornelius respectfully requests that this Court enter the accompanying agreed order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. DCSI does not oppose this relief. In sum, the settlement here constitutes an objectively excellent result for the Settlement Class. Thus, given the significant risks in continued litigation and the substantial expected recoveries for participating Settlement Class Members, this settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Deere Credit offers forestry, landscaping, construction equipment, and golf financing services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B9D4P8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Steven H. Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC 3575 Piedmont Rd., NE 15 Piedmont Center, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 513-6651 E-mail: Steve@KovalFirm.com DESMOND BARRY: Clune Has Until Oct. 7 to File SAC ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN P. CLUNE, et al., v. DESMOND T. BARRY, Jr., et al., Case No. 7:16-cv-04441-NSR-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nelson Roman entered an order rejecting the Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend is granted. -- The Plaintiffs shall file their second amended complaint on or before Oct. 7, 2024. -- The Defendants are directed to answer, seek leave to move, or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint on or before Oct. 28, 2024. The Plaintiffs commenced this action on June 13, 2016 against the Defendants, alleging that the Defendants committed violations of federal securities law, common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duties in negotiating lease renewals that destroyed the market value of the Plaintiffs' shares in the Winged Foot Holding Corporation ("WFHC"). On April 13, 2023, Magistrate Judge Judith McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation that recommended the Court deny the Plaintiff's Motion. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LjicI7 at no extra charge.[CC] DIAMONDBACK ENERGY: Court Dismisses PCRA, Webb Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Diamondback Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K for September 9, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2024, that on March 25, 2024, the court entered a stipulated order dismissing "Plymouth County Retirement Association and Kenneth Webb, et al. v. Diamondback Energy, Inc., et al.," C.A. No. 2024-0183-MTZ (February 28, 2024, Del. Ch.) as moot and retaining jurisdiction to determine plaintiffs' counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The dismissal order was entered by the court without a finding of wrongdoing by the company, its directors or anyone else. Following entry of the dismissal order, the parties engaged in arm's-length negotiations, pursuant to which the company and/or its insurer(s) have agreed to pay plaintiffs' counsel, on behalf of all defendants, $495,000.00 in attorneys' fees (inclusive of expenses) in full satisfaction of any claim by plaintiffs or plaintiffs' counsel for an award of fees, costs and expenses in connection with this Action. The court has not and will not pass judgment on the Mootness Fee. Among other things, the complaint challenged the Activist Sale Prohibition and the Board Voting Requirement. On March 18, 2024, the company and the other parties to a Merger Agreement amended it to amend the form of Stockholders Agreement to remove the Activist Sale Prohibition and amend the Board Voting Provision so as to require the Endeavor Stockholders to vote their shares of Company Common Stock in director elections in proportion to all other stockholders of the company for so long as they own 20% of the outstanding shares of company Common Stock. Diamondback Energy, Inc. is into crude petroleum and natural gas and is based in Midland, Texas. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKEL BARNES, et al., v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00750-RCL (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification from Sept. 26, 2024, to Oct. 7, 2024. The Plaintiffs consent to this extension, subject to a corresponding extension of their reply deadline from Oct. 21, 2024, to Nov. 1, 2024. Here, counsel for the District requires additional time to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion given competing deadlines in other cases. Further, Defendant Bureau of Prisons has also moved, with Plaintiffs' consent, to extend its deadline to oppose Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to Oct. 7, 2024. The District's proposed extension would align the briefing deadlines and will not unduly delay the resolution of this matter. If the Court grants this request, this will be the third extension of this deadline, and the only other deadline that would be affected is Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of the motion. District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NxzA4k at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew R. Blecher, Esq. Honey Morton, Esq. Amanda C. Pescovitz, Esq. Helen M. Rave, Esq. CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION 400 6th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 805-7495 E-mail: amanda.pescovitz1@dc.gov DMM SOLUTIONS: Grimmett Directed to File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE GRIMMETT, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DMM SOLUTIONS, INC., and DOES 1- 100, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Case No. 1:24-cv-05903-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order that, not later than Oct. 14, 2024, the Plaintiff must either: (1) move for an order to show cause why default judgment should not be entered against DMM Solutions, Inc. on behalf of Ms. Grimmett, in accordance with this Court's Individual Practices, or (2) move for class certification. If Plaintiff does not move for an order to show cause or for class certification by this date, the case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. DMM Solutions provides services for dating sites operating on different stages of development (start-ups, growing projects, late stage of development). A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tOwygH at no extra charge.[CC] DRC DEMO LLC: Khan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against DRC Demo, LLC. The case is styled as Ali Khan, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated v. DRC Demo, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0012327 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 24, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." DRC Demo, LLC do home renovations such as flooring, kitchen remolding, bathroom remodeling, demolition, fencing, roofing and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com DTIII LLC: Leon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DTIII, LLC. The case is styled as Ruben Leon, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated v. DTIII, LLC, Case No. CGC24618365 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 24, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Dtiii, LLC is a business entity based in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com DYNAMIC NURSING: Vidal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Nursing Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Maricela Morales Vidal, an individual, on behalf of State of California, and all persons similarly situated v. Dynamic Nursing Services, Inc., Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 24VECV04581 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 24, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Dynamic In-Home Care -- https://www.dynamicnursing.com/ -- provides Caregiving and Home Health Care services to seniors across the Greater Los Angeles Area and Las Vegas Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: 619-599-8292 Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Ortiz Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER, N.A., INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00867 (W.D.N.Y., September 13, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website https://economist.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 and the New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff visited the website in order to purchase an Annual ENNA Subscription Plan. Plaintiff attempted to purchase an Annual ENNA Subscription Plan but was unable to locate pricing and terms and conditions and other information about the online newspaper and was not able to open an account due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, which prevented him from doing so. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on Defendant's website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, says the suit. 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. The Economist Newspaper, N.A. operates the ENNA online newspaper, as well as the ENNA interactive website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ENDAVA PLC: Named in Mueller Securities Suit in New York Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Endava PLC disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2024, that on August 26, 2024, the company and certain of its directors and officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned "Hendrick Mueller et al. v. Endava plc et al." The class action, brought on behalf of an investor and others similarly situated between May 23, 2023 and February 28, 2024, asserts claims against the company, its CEO and CFO for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on, among other things, the dissemination of statements allegedly containing material misstatements and/or omissions about our business, operations and prospects. Endava is a technology/software company based out of London. EO PRODUCTS: Class Certification Bid Continued to Feb. 25, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DREW MOORE and JANA NICOLE RABINOWITZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EO PRODUCTS, LLC, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 4:22-cv-07618-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order continuing dates in the Order dated Aug. 7, 2024, as follows: Event Current New Deadline Deadline Class certification motion and Oct. 25, 2024 Feb. 25, 2025 Plaintiffs' class certification expert disclosures due: Document and deposition discovery Nov. 25, 2024 March 27, 2025 deadline re: Plaintiffs' experts Class certification opposition Dec. 9, 2024 April 11, 2025 and Defendants' class certification expert disclosures due: Document and deposition Jan. 13, 2025 May 12, 2025 discovery deadline re: Defendant's experts: Class certification reply and Jan. 27, 2025 May 27, 2025 Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert disclosure due: A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FsGYYD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 E-mail: craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: William P. Cole, Esq. Matthew R. Orr, Esq. Angela L. Diesch, Esq. Richard L. Hyde, Esq. AMIN WASSERMAN GURNANI, LLP 515 South Flower Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 933-2330 E-mail: wcole@awglaw.com morr@awglaw.com adiesch@awglaw.com rhyde@awglaw.com EVOLUTION NEW JERSEY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Tucker Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ANJELICA TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLUTION NEW JERSEY LLC., a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-09291 (D.N.J., Sept. 19, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff and those similarly situated have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's non-discretionary bonuses as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff was employed with Defendant from August 22, 2023 through July 24, 2024 as an hourly, non-exempt employee. He worked at Defendant's location at 1000 Town Center, Southfield, Michigan. Evolution New Jersey LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters located at 1000 Boardwalk, Atlantic City, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com FAVORITE WORLD: Bid for Class Certification Extended to Nov. 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIDA MINOR and ASHA AYANNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FAVORITE WORLD, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04425-JFW-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Oct. 21, 2024, for an order modifying the Scheduling Order to extend the deadline of the Plaintiffs' anticipated Motion for Class Certification by 60 days to Nov. 24, 2024. The Court says extension is granted because: (1) the Plaintiffs have been diligent in seeking discovery; (2) the Court only recently ruled on Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, requiring the Plaintiff file a second amended complaint on Sept. 26, 2024; and (3) the Defendant substituted counsel after the Parties' Rule 26(f) conference which inhibited the Plaintiffs from collecting discovery and timely initial disclosures from the Defendant. The Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on April 19, 2024, in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=byzQiz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon Brouillette, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-763 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com FAVORITE WORLD: Minor Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID A. MINOR and ASHA AYANNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FAVORITE WORLD, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04425-JFW-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Oct. 28, 2024, for an order certifying the following Class: "All persons in California who Purchased one or more of the Defendant's Products from Defendant's website www.shapermint.com at a Discounted Price below the listed MSRP price at any time from April 19, 2020 until the date class notice is disseminated." "Purchased" includes any form of payment, store credit, or gift cards; "Defendant" is Favorite World, LLC; "Products" are all "Essentials," "Empetua (TM)," and "Truekind (TM)" branded shapewear products sold on Defendant's website including bras, underwear, leggings, camis, bodysuits, swim wear, and other clothing articles and do not include accessories; and "Discounted Price" means a sale price below the original MSRP price without taking into account any coupon codes, store credit, or any other credits that could be applied to further reduce the purchase price during the checkout process. Excluded from the from the proposed Class definition are: (i) Defendant and its officers, directors, and employees; (ii) any person who files a valid and timely request for exclusion; (iii) judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to the case; and (iv) anyone who received a full cash refund of the Product(s). Further, Plaintiffs meet the requirements for the appointment as Class Representatives and Brandon Brouillette, Craig W. Straub, and Zachary M. Crosner of Crosner Legal, P.C. meet each of the requirements of Rule 23(g)(1). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's website uses a uniform fictious discount pricing scheme that dupes consumers into believing the Products they purchased were on sale for a limited time when in reality the Products are always on sale. In sum, Defendant's discounts are likely to deceive consumers because they do not represent Defendant’s usual or customary offering prices, and its sale prices are likely to deceive consumers into believing that they are receiving a discount from the normal offering price. Favorite is a company that engages in the highly competitive marketing and sales of fashion products for sale on the Shapermint website, including shapewear, swimwear, bras, and underwear. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bFd7bI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon Brouillette, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-763 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com GARDAWORLD CASH: Artis Alleges Illegal Insurance Surcharges ----------------------------------------------------------- BLAIR ARTIS and JONATHAN FISHER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GARDAWORLD CASH SERVICES, INC. d/b/a GARDAWORLD CASH, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00837 (W.D.N.C., September 16, 2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal nicotine and vaccine surcharges that violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and its anti-discrimination provisions by singling out certain employees and forcing them to pay more each month for health insurance. The suit challenges the Defendant's unfair and unlawful practices to punish employees who use nicotine products or exercise their rights not to be vaccinated with significantly higher health insurance premiums through "nicotine surcharges" and "vaccine surcharges." Allegedly, the GardaWorld Cash Services, Inc. Health and Welfare Benefit Plan does not offer the requisite reasonable alternative standards and, even if it did, there is no communication of their existence in "all plan materials." Thus, the Plan fails to satisfy the exception under the applicable regulations and violates ERISA's anti-discrimination requirements and collection of additional monies in connection with nicotine use or vaccine status and continues to be unlawful, says the suit. Plaintiffs Artis and Fisher were and continue to be employees of GardaWorld; they have been for the last several years. Ms. Artis and Mr. Fisher work as armed guards in North Carolina and were required to pay the illegal surcharge to maintain health insurance coverage under the Plan. They bring this lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated plan participants and beneficiaries, seeking to recover these unlawfully charged additional premiums and for plan-wide equitable relief to prevent GardaWorld from continuing to profit from its violations under ERISA. GardaWorld Cash Services, Inc. d/b/a GardaWorld Cash is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. The Company operates one or more health and welfare plans which were available for GardaWorld employees.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dana Smith, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 525 North Tryon Street Suite 1600, #7433 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (980) 448-1299 - and - David D. DiSabato, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com ddisabato@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com GEO GROUP: Gonzalez Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUGO GONZALEZ, JOSE BACA, ERICK LOPEZ, MARIO MANJARREZ, and RICARDO SANDOVAL GUADARRAMA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. The GEO Group, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:22-cv-04014-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Nov. 18, 2024, for an order certifying case as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) for damages, or alternatively 23(c)(4) for liability, and appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel under Rule 23(g). GEO is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in private prisons and mental health facilities in the United States, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H7qZXu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catherine Sweetser, Esq. Tessa R. Baizer, Esq. UCLA LAW CLINICS 385 Charles E Young Drive East Los Angeles, CA 90095 E-mail: csweetser@sshhzlaw.com baizer@law.ucla.edu - and - Paul Hoffman, Esq. John Washington, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP 200 Pier Avenue, #226 Hermosa Beach, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com jwashington@sshhzlaw.com - and - Barrett S. Litt, Esq. Lindsay Battles, Esq. McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (626) 844-7660 E-mail: blitt@mbllegal.com lbattles@mbllegal.com GERBER PRODUCTS: Conry Suit Transferred to E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Thomas Conry, Brittany Cameron, Kelsey Daker, Kathryn Follett, Christina Hall, Danielle Harris, Carey LaVellee, Amy Moore, Ashley Orozco, Jessica Patrich, Hailey Ronayne, Nicole Satterly, Sydney Segretto, Robyn Sussman, Laila Volle, Samantha Zomer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gerber Products Company, Perrigo Company PLC, L. Perrigo Company, PBM Nutritionals, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00295 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 24, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-06784-NG-AYS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for the Clayton Act. Gerber Products Company -- https://www.gerber.com/ -- is an American purveyor of baby food and baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey, with plans to relocate to Arlington, Virginia. Gerber is a subsidiary of Nestle.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq. DURRETTEBRADSHAW PLC 600 East Main Street 20th Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 775-6900 Fax: (804) 775-6911 Email: wdurrette@durrettebradshaw.com - and - Abou Bakarr Amara, Jr., Esq. Daniel Elvin Gustafson, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC (MN-NA) 120 South Sixth St., Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: aamara@gustafsongluek.com dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com - and - Benjamin J. Eichel, Esq. John Elliott Sindoni, Esq. Joshua David Snyder, Esq. Michael J. Boni, Esq. BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC 15 Saint Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (610) 822-0200 Fax: (610) 822-0206 Email: beichel@bonizack.com jsindoni@bonizack.com jsnyder@bonizack.com mboni@bonizack.com - and - Bobby Pouya, Esq. Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (818) 788-8300 Email: bpouya@pwfirm.com dwarshaw@pwfirm.com - and - Gerard A. Dever, Esq. Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq. Roberta Dayvette Liebenberg, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC One South Broad Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 567-6565 Fax: (215) 568-5872 Email: gdever@finekaplan.com jgittleman@finekaplan.com rliebenberg@finekaplan.com - and - Jeffrey John Corrigan, Esq. Jeffrey Lawrence Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 496-0300 Fax: (215) 496-6611 Email: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com jspector@srkattorneys.com - and - Kevin Jermone Funk, Esq. DURRETTE ARKEMA GERSON & GILL PC 1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 775-6900 Email: kfunk@dagglaw.com - and - Meghan Talbot, Esq. Zachary Pogust, Esq. POGUST GOODHEAD LLC (PA-NA) 161 Washington Street, Suite 250 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 941-4204 Fax: (610) 941-4245 Email: mtalbot@pogustgoodhead.com zpogust@pogustgoodhead.com - and - Patrick Howard, Esq. Simon Paris, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 575-3895 Email: sparis@smbb.com - and - Rebecca Anne Peterson, Esq. William Joseph Bruckner, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP (MN-NA) 100 Washington Ave S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: rapeterson@locklaw.com wjbruckner@locklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Carmen Nicole Green, Esq. Carmine Ralph Zarlenga, III, Esq. Katherine Bleicher, Esq. Oral Pottinger, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP (DC) 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 Phone: (202) 263-3123 Email: clongoriagreen@mayerbrown.com czarlenga@mayerbrown.com kbleicher@mayerbrown.com opottinger@mayerbrown.com - and - Ian S. Hoffman, Esq. Matthew Tabas, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP (DC) 601 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 942-6406 Fax: (202) 942-5999 Email: ian.hoffman@aporter.com matthew.tabas@arnoldporter.com - and - Charles Scott Lent, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP (NY-NA) 250 W. 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 836-8000 Fax: (212) 836-8689 Email: Scott.Lent@arnoldporter.com GERBER PRODUCTS: Lyngas Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brian J. Lyngas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Solstice Benefits, Inc., John Does 1-5, Case No. 8:24-mc-00016 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Sept. 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-mc-51122-MFL to the proceeding. Gerber Products Company -- https://www.gerber.com/ -- is an American purveyor of baby food and baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey, with plans to relocate to Arlington, Virginia. Gerber is a subsidiary of Nestle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK LAW FIRM, LLC DBA BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC 820 Arthur Godfrey Rd # 305, Ste 305 Miami Beach, FL 33140 Phone: (305) 465-6501 Fax: (305) 465-6501 Email: phil@classlawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq. Roy Taub, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LAW 200 E. Broward Blvd., Ste 1800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 491-1120 Fax: (954) 734-1853 Email: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com roy.taub@gmlaw.com GLOBAL PAYMENTS: $3.6MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Case No. 1:23-cv-00577-LMM SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES MIKE SHAFER, DAVID KEATING, and WILLIAM JEFFREY IGOE, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL PAYMENTS INC., ACTIVE NETWORK LLC, JEFF SLOAN, CAMERON BREADY, PAUL TODD, JOSH WHIPPLE, and ANDREA FACINI, Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Global Payments Inc. ("Global Payments") from October 31, 2019 through October 18, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $3,600,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on December 11, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Leigh Martin May at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Courtroom 2167 of the Richard B. Russell Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-3309, or remotely per details that will be made publicly available on the Settlement website (www.globalpaymentssecuritieslitigation.com) in advance of the Settlement Hearing to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 10, 2024 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Co-Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses should be approved. If you are a member of this Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Global Payments Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173002, Milwaukee, WI 53217. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.globalpaymentssecuritieslitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than January 11, 2025. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than November 20, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than November 20, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Global Payments, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Co-Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Co-Lead Counsel: Jeremy Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 661-1100 jalieberman@pomlaw.com Vincent Briganti, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 997-0500 vbriganti@lowey.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Global Payments Inc. Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173002 Milwaukee, WI 53217 (877) 411-4706 www.globalpaymentssecuritieslitigation.com By Order of the Court GLOBE LIFE INC: Goodie Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------- Diana Goodie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Globe Life, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-00860-ALM (E.D. Tex., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII") of potentially millions of individuals. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was compromised and unlawfully exfiltrated due to the Data Breach. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves. 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 client's PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. Defendant maintained, used, and shared the PII in a reckless manner. In particular, the PII was used and transmitted by Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the PII from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a customer and current policyholder of Globe Life. The Defendant is an insurance company that provides life and supplemental health insurance to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 GRACE OCEAN: U.S. Slams Attempt to Limit Liability Over Disaster ---------------------------------------------------------------- In In re Grace Ocean Private Limited and Synergy Marine Pte Ltd. (D. Md., Case No. 1:24-cv-00941), the United States filed a claim and action on September 18, 2024, against Grace Ocean and Synergy, as owner and technical manager, respectively, of M/V DALI, the container cargo vessel registered in and sailing under the flag of Singapore, which allided with and destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, on March 26, 2024. The United States brings its claim against Grace Ocean and Synergy pursuant to the general maritime law of the United States; the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 ("Rivers and Harbors Act"), 33 U.S.C. Sections 401 et seq., as amended; the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. Sections 2701-2762; and the law of public nuisance, to recover the United States' costs and other damages stemming from the disaster. According to the United States, "Th[e] tragedy was entirely avoidable. The electrical and mechanical systems on the DALI were improperly maintained and configured in a way that violated safety regulations and norms for international shipping. These problems precipitated a power loss and then a cascading series of failures that culminated in the allision. As events unfolded, and because of the unseaworthy condition of the ship, none of the four means available to help control the DALI-her propeller, rudder, anchor, or bow thruster-worked when they were needed to avert or even mitigate this disaster." The United States further said that, "The ship's owner and manager--who now ask the Court to limit their liability to less than $44 million--sent an ill-prepared crew on an abjectly unseaworthy vessel to navigate the United States' waterways. They did so to reap the benefit of conducting business in American ports. Yet they cut corners in ways that risked lives and infrastructure. Those responsible for the vessel must be held fully accountable for the catastrophic harm they caused, and punitive damages should be imposed to deter such misconduct." The United States said it incurred losses and damages as a result of Petitioners' negligence in the total amount of approximately $103,078,056. * * * "Those costs should be borne by the shipowner and operator, not the American taxpayer," The New York Times quotes Benjamin Mizer, the department's third-ranking official, who oversees the civil division among others, as saying. He added that the department would be seeking punitive damages as well, "to try to keep this type of conduct from ever happening again." In an email message on Wednesday morning [Sept. 18], Darrell Wilson, a representative of Grace Ocean and Synergy Marine, said that the government's action was anticipated, given the Sept. 24 deadline for filing such claims, NY Times relates. "The owner and manager will have no further comment on the merits of any claim at this time, but we do look forward to our day in court to set the record straight," Mr. Wilson added, notes the report. Justice Department officials said they could not comment on the status of a separate federal criminal investigation into the crash, the NY Times relays. The Dali, as long as the height of the Eiffel Tower, lost power and slammed into the Key Bridge on March 26, causing the bridge to collapse and killing six men who were repairing pavement on the bridge, recounts NY Times. On Sept. 17, the families of three of the men who were killed announced that they, too, were suing the owner of the Dali, notes the the NY Times. A Justice Department official said Sept. 18 that the state of Maryland would attempt to recoup the cost of rebuilding the bridge through legal actions, adds the report. GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Response in Opposition Extended to Oct. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDI CRAWFORD-JOHNSON, ET AL., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00842-JTN-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the extension and enter a scheduling order with the following deadlines: Event New Prior Deadline Deadline Defendant's Response in Opposition Oct. 11, 2024 Sept. 27, 2024 to Class Certification Due: Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Oct. 25, 2024 Oct. 11, 2024 Class Certification Due: No party will be prejudiced by the modest requested extension. GPI is not seeking to amend other deadlines in the operative Case Management Order. Pursuant to LCivR. 7.1(a), and this Court's Information and Guidelines for Civil Practice Section III.B, GPI has contemporaneously submitted a brief in support of its request. On Feb. 20, 2024, the Court entered an Order Amending the Case Management Deadlines. Graphic Packaging is a leading company in the design and manufacturing of packaging for commercial products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LGp6wH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Charles M. Denton, Esq. Anthony C. Sallah, Esq. Mark P. Miller, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 171 Monroe Avenue, NW, Suite 1000 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 742-3930 Facsimile: (616) 742-3999 E-mail: cdenton@btlaw.com asallah@btlaw.com mmiller@btlaw.com GUY HARVEY INC: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. GUY HARVEY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07259 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://guyharvey.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. GUY HARVEY, INC., operates the Guy Harvey online retail store, as well as the Guy Harvey interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 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 HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS: McCabe Sues Over False Representation ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin McCabe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-06781 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for false, misleading, inconspicuous and inaccurately representation of the True Coffee Maker Capacity. On August 3, 2024, McCabe, while in this District, accessed the Product Listing on the amazon.com Android smartphone application (the "Android Application Listing") and thereupon purchased a Coffee Maker. Many Class Members, including many Representation Viewers, purchased their Coffee Maker through the Product Listing on the amazon.com desktop version, the amazon.com mobile website, or the amazon.com Apple smartphone application, each of which, with respect to the allegations set forth herein, were, in all relevant respects, substantially similar to the Android Application Listing. The Product Listing stated that the Coffee Maker has a "Capacity" of "96 Fluid Ounces" (the "96-Ounce Representation"). The actual capacity of the Coffee Maker (the "True Coffee Maker Capacity") was approximately 64 fluid ounces. The True Coffee Maker Capacity was materially less than 96 ounces. At least a significant portion of the Class Members, prior to making their purchases, saw and reasonably believed the 96-Ounce Representation (the "Representation Believers"). Hamilton knew that at least a significant portion of the Class Members would be Representation Believers. Hamilton intended that the Class Members would be Representation Believers. Hamilton knew, and intended, that the Representation Believers would rely upon the 96-Ounce Representation in deciding whether to purchase a Coffee Maker. Hamilton knew that the Representation Believers would be more likely to purchase a Coffee Maker than they would have been if they had known of the True Coffee Maker Capacity. If the Product Listing had conspicuously and accurately represented the True Coffee Maker Capacity, the price of the Coffee Maker would have been less than what it actually was, and, therefore, the Class Members would have paid that lower amount, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Coffee Maker for personal, household use. Hamilton has distributed the Coffee Maker through the Product Listing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C. 119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: (718) 520-7125 HILY CORP: Carroll Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------- Craig Carroll, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hily Corp., Case No. 1:24-cv-08858 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 24, 2024), is brought against the Defendant, its subsidiaries and affiliates, to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric information (collectively referred to herein as "biometric data" and/or "biometrics"). As part of signing up, and/or gaining access to his Hily account, Plaintiff was prompted to allow Hily to collect his facial geometry, i.e., his biometric information in order to verify his identity and ensure that he can meet the standards required by Hily in order to have access to the application. The data sets collected during this process are known as facial geometry scans. Facial geometry scans are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each user that cannot be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised. Hily's unlawful collection, obtainment, storage, and use of its user's biometric data exposes them to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if Hily's database containing facial geometry scans or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, Hily users have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff opened an account on Hily within the 5 years. Hily is a dating website and mobile application.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave., Ste.104 Skokie, IL 60076 Phone: 847-986-5889 Facsimile: 847-673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022 Phone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com HORMEL FOODS: Settles Consolidated Pork Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------ 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, beginning in June 2018, a series of putative class action complaints were filed against the company, as well as several other pork-processing companies and a benchmarking service called "Agri Stats," in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota styled "In re Pork Antitrust Litigation (the Pork Antitrust Litigation)." The company executed settlement agreements providing for payments to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs of $4.9 million, the Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs of $2.4 million, and the Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs of $4.5 million. The $4.5 million settlement amount was paid in August 2024, subsequent to the end of the third quarter. Class Plaintiffs consist of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, and Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. The Class Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork 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. Hormel is a global manufacturer and marketer of branded food products with three reportable segments: retail, foodservice, and international. ILLINOIS BONE: Lapata Files Suit in Ill. DuPage County ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, LLC. The case is styled as Aurieann Lapata, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, LLC, Case No. 2024LA001160 (Ill., DuPage Cty., Sept. 25, 2024). The case type is stated as "Negligence." Illinois Bone & Joint Institute -- https://www.ibji.com/ -- offers comprehensive sub-specialty care for a wide variety of orthopedic and sports medicine problems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Heldut, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Email: aheldut@mcgpc.com INFINITE HEALTH: Vriezen Files Suit in D. Montana ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Infinite Health Collaborative, P.A. The case is styled as Kelly Vriezen, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Infinite Health Collaborative, P.A. doing business as: Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Case No. 0:24-cv-03743-NEB-DJF (D. Mont., Sept. 25, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Wire or Oral Communications. Infinite Health Collaborative -- https://i-health.com/ -- is an independent physician practice that preserves true, patient-first care. Learn more today.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christiaan Van Lierop, Esq. JOHNSON//BECKER PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (952) 486-0353 Email: cvanlierop@johnsonbecker.com IRON MOUNTAIN: Rimey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Iron Mountain Secure Shredding, Inc. The case is styled as Victor Rimey, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Iron Mountain Secure Shredding, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0012333 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 24, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Iron Mountain -- https://www.ironmountain.com/ -- offers verified offsite shredding, or an onsite option for customers that require the immediate or witnessed destruction of materials on premises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly DeSario, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 475 14th St., Ste. 700 Oakland, CA 94612-1945 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: molly.desario@wilshirelawfirm.com JARED RARDIN: Cheng Given 21 Days to Consider Withdrawing Request ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheng v. Rardin, et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-03712 (D. Minn., Filed Sept. 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Katherine M. Menendez entered an order that rather than consider the propriety of filing of these matters publicly or under seal at this time, the Court grants Plaintiff 21 days to consider whether to withdraw his request for filing of the inmate lists, understanding such lists may be filed at the appropriate time as the case progresses. The Court observes that, even if such lists were filed and done so under seal pursuant to D. Minn. LR 5.6 and thus not available to the general public, they would nonetheless likely be available to Defendants. The Plaintiff in this putative class action has offered two attachments for filing with his Complaint -- one which purports to name fellow inmates who support this class action, and an identical document in which Plaintiff has attempted to redact the names of those inmates. The Plaintiff has also filed a motion to seal the inmate list "due to potential reprisals from the Defendants." Questions regarding the propriety of class certification, including numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy of representation, are premature. As such, there appears to be no reason for the inmate lists to be filed at this time. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights.[CC] KINETIC EVENTS INC: Burton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kinetic Events, Inc. The case is styled as Amourafina Burton, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kinetic Events, Inc., Does 1 Through 50, Case No. CGC24618367 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 24, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Kinetic Events -- https://kineticevents.com/ -- is a nationwide staffing solution for conference and event staff, trade show staff, brand ambassadors, promotional models, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Sung, Esq. JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C. 3600 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1815 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2622 Phone: 323-922-2000 Email: william@justiceforworkers.com KNOX COUNTY, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in JBH Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.B.H., v. Knox County, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-04096-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jf0LJb at no extra charge.[CC] L'ATELIER GLOBAL: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. L'ATELIER GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07241 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's www.latelierglobal.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com LEXISNEXIS RISK: Alkayali Sues Over Inaccurate Reporting -------------------------------------------------------- Ahmad Alkayali, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01713-AGS-MMP (S.D. Cal., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (hereinafter "FCRA") seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully reporting inaccurate information on Plaintiff's consumer report without maintaining "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information" concerning the consumer. In June of 2023, Plaintiff attempted to procure a loan through Layne Capital. Throughout the process, Plaintiff properly provided the lenders all of the applicable information. Unfortunately, on July 10, 2023, prior to approving the loan, Layne Capital told Plaintiff that there are "unspecified criminal charges that we will need written explanations for." Layne Capital sent him their source for the false accusation: a LexisNexis consumer report identifying three "Criminal Occurrences" as seen on 05/08/2014. The report shows "Generated on: 07/10/2023 – 3:33 PM ET." The Plaintiff felt shocked and offended by the outrageous consumer report. Indeed, Plaintiff has never been charged or convicted of any criminal offense. Frustrated, Plaintiff reached out to Defendant to have the inaccuracies corrected. In July of 2023, Plaintiff contacted Defendant to dispute the three criminal findings in the report. In a letter dated August 31, 2023, Defendant responded that "upon review of our investigation, we have verified that our Criminal Records are accurate as reported." Instead of complying with the FCRA, Defendant willfully and knowingly— while reporting inaccurate criminal, among other information—takes the untenable position that it does not provide consumer reports as defined and regulated by the FCRA. Defendant's position disregards the plain language of the FCRA and the CCRAA. Accordingly, Defendant systematically fails to comply with the FCRA. Thus, these representations also constitute unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business acts or practices in violation of the FCRA, says the complaint. The Defendant is a global data and analytics company, which provides consumer reports and does business in the State of California. The Defendant is a global data and analytics company, which provides consumer reports and does business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. Jonathan Gil, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ryan@kazlg.com jonathan@kazlg.com - and - Zachary Z. Zermay, Esq. ZERMAY LAW GROUP 3000 Coral Way, Suite 1115 Coral Gables, FL 33145 Phone: (305) 767-3529 Fax: (844) 894-6204 Email: zach@zermaylaw.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Powers Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The case is styled as Yevonne Powers, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-00794 (N.D. Ind., Sept. 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company -- https://www.libertymutual.com/ -- is an American diversified global insurer and the sixth-largest property and casualty insurer in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES LLC 909 Davis St Ste 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: (312) 729-5288 Fax: (312) 719-5289 Email: Aburke@BurkeLawLLC.com LOVESAC COMPANY: Settlement in Gutknecht Suit Wins Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- The Lovesac Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended August 4, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2024, that the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut preliminarily approved the proposed settlement in the case captioned "Gutknecht v. The Lovesac Company," Case No. 3:23-cv-1640 on August 1, 2024, authorized dissemination of notice to the class, and scheduled a fairness hearing for December 9, 2024 On December 19, 2023, said putative securities class action was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers in said court seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by violations of federal securities law in connection with the restatements. Suit alleges that all defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint generally alleges that the company made certain misrepresentations or failed to disclose certain accounting errors related to the restatement of its financial statements and that the company's disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting were deficient. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On March 11, 2024, the court appointed Susan Cooke Pena as Lead Plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel. On May 29, 2024, the parties entered into a term sheet to settle the action, subject to various conditions, including execution of a definitive settlement agreement, filing of the definitive agreement with the court, and court approval. The parties executed the definitive settlement agreement on July 30, 2024. Lovesac is a technology company that designs, manufactures and sells modular couches, premium foam beanbag chairs and their associated home decor accessories. It market and sell through showrooms, mobile concierge and kiosks and online directly at www.lovesac.com. LYNN UNIVERSITY: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. LYNN UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07224 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 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://www.lynn.edu, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not limited to, https://store.lynn.edu/ (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 MACY'S INC: Pontiac Dismissed from PRGERS Suit ---------------------------------------------- Macy's, 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 plaintiff City of Pontiac Reestablished General Employees' Retirement System in a putative class action captioned "City of Pontiac Reestablished General Employees' Retirement System v. Arel, et al.," C.A. No. 2024-0368-LWW against the company and its directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery, dismissed the action with prejudice as to City of Pontiac only, and without prejudice as to any actual or potential claims of any other members of the putative class, while reserving the right to assert a claim for attorneys' fees and expenses after the company announced the appointment of two nominees to the company's Board with the approval of its incumbent directors on April 10, 2024. In connection with the appointments, it withdrew its other director nominations and entered into a cooperation agreement with the company. The company subsequently agreed to pay $100,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of any and all claims by City of Pontiac and its counsel for fees and expenses in the Action. On July 3, 2024, the court entered an order approving the form of notice concerning attorneys' fees payable in connection with the action, and thus closing it, subject to the company filing an affidavit with the court confirming that such notice has been issued. In entering the order, the court was not asked to review, and did not pass judgment on, the payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their reasonableness. On April 8, 2024, the City of Pontiac Reestablished General Employees' Retirement System filed said class action alleging, among other things, that the board of directors of the company was breaching its fiduciary duties, and coercing company stockholders, by failing to approve nine directors to the company's board. Macy's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an omni-channel retail organization operating stores, websites and mobile applications under three nameplates: Macy's, Bloomingdale's and Bluemercury, that sell a wide range of merchandise, including apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home furnishings and other consumer goods with stores in 43 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. MAXIMUS INC: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Stewart Says ---------------------------------------------------------- LATAYSHA STEWART, and JAZLYN HARVARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAXIMUS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01652 (E.D. Va., Sept. 19, 2024) is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Minimum Wage Act, the New York Payment of Wages Act, and common law. Plaintiff Stewart and Plaintiff Harvard were previously employed by the Defendant as hourly call center employees with the job titles of customer service representative and customer service specialist, respectively. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its customer service representatives for work tasks completed before their scheduled shifts prior to clocking in, during their designated meal periods, during technical downtime, and following their end of shift clock-out. More specifically, the Defendant failed to compensate CSRs for the time they spend performing activities like turning on and booting up their computers, and logging into all required applications to be prepared to begin working as soon as they were permitted to clock in prior to their scheduled shifts and upon returning from their lunch breaks, says the suit. Maximus, Inc. provides health and human services worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq., SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540 Little River Turnpike, Suite A Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Facsimile: (703) 991-6116 E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com pkennedy@sommerspc.com MDL 2924: Sardina Seeks to Vacate Court's Transfer Order -------------------------------------------------------- In the MDL "In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned "Sardina v. Glaxosmithkline LLC, et al.," C.A. No. 3:24−02984 (N.D. Cal.) to the Southern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Robin L. Rosenberg for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff moves to vacate said order while Defendant GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, opposes the motion to vacate. Said litigation involves common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2924; allegations that ranitidine, the active molecule in "Zantac" and similar heartburn medications, can form the carcinogen N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), either during storage or when metabolized in the human body. Plaintiff argued that federal subject matter jurisdiction over his case is lacking and that his pending motion for remand to state court should be decided before transfer, also transfer will delay the resolution of his remand motion. However, the panel has held that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer and that transfer of an action is appropriate if it furthers the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties to the action might experience inconvenience. A full-text copy of the court's August 1, 2024 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2924-Transfer_Order-7-24.pdf MICHAEL ANDREWS: Abramson Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL ABRAMSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Michael Andrews, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06474 (E.D.N.Y., September 16, 2024) is a civil rights action against Michael Andrews for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website https://www.michaelandrews.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 Abramson has made an attempt to visit and use Michaelandrews.com. On July 3, 2024, the Plaintiff intended to buy locally made well-fitting jeans, so he was looking for a local clothing store. He conducted a Google search and using the keywords "jeans made in NYC," he found the Defendant's website. Upon visiting the website, he encountered multiple accessibility issues, such as non-functional menu items and duplicated product titles, which significantly hindered his navigation. Additionally, due to the inability to focus on interactive elements, he was unable to make an online appointment for his store visit. These access barriers have caused Michaelandrews.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by blind and visually impaired persons. Amongst other access barriers experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to learn more information about store locations and hours of operation, compare prices and benefits and learn more information about the goods and services in its physical location. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Michael Andrews' 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. Michael Andrews, LLC operates the website which provides consumers with access to bespoke and made-to-measure garments which Defendant offers in connection with their physical location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: glevyfirm@gmail.com MICHAEL MCKINNEY: Court Dismisses Wind Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY CARL WIND JR, v. MICHAEL J. MCKINNEY, ADAMS COUNTY, and NATHAN MCDONALD, Case No. 1:23-cv-01011-PAB-RTG (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip Brimmer entered an order accepting the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The Court further entered an order that: -- "Plaintiff's Objection to the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge" is overruled. -- The Defendants Michael J. McKinney's and Adams County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the Defendant Nathan McDonald's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are granted. -- The Plaintiff's motion to certify class action pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") 42 U.S.C. sections 2000cc to 2000cc-5 is denied. -- Mr. Wind's claims alleging violations of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, and RLUIPA are dismissed without prejudice. -- All other claims asserted by Mr. Wind are dismissed with prejudice. -- The case is closed. The Court has reviewed the rest of the recommendation, including Judge Dominguez Braswell's recommendation to deny Mr. Wind's motion to certify a class action, to satisfy itself that there are "no clear error[s] on the face of the record." Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. On Jan. 16, 2024, Adams County and Mr. McKinney jointly filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Wind’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bZ9kFx at no extra charge.[CC] NEIMAN MARCUS: Gianne Files Suit in D. Montana ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Natalie Gianne, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, Snowflake, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00102-BMM (D. Mont., Sept. 24, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Neiman Marcus -- https://www.neimanmarcusgroup.com/ -- is an American department store chain founded in 1907 in Dallas, Texas by Herbert Marcus, his sister Carrie Marcus Neiman, and her husband Abraham Lincoln Neiman.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Heenan, Esq. Joseph Patrick Cook, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Phone: (406) 839-9091 Fax: (406) 839-9092 Email: john@lawmontana.com joe@lawmontana.com NESTLE USA: Foster Balks at Mislabeled Toll House Morsels --------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08536 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 17, 2024) alleges that Defendant's prominent, front label representation that its Nestle Toll House Morsels contain "100% REAL CHOCOLATE" is false, misleading, and deceptive. According to the complaint, contrary to the express representation, the products contain two non-chocolate ingredients: soy lecithin and natural flavor (the "Non-Chocolate Ingredients"), which are included to mimic the taste and consistency of real chocolate. Reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, who purchase Defendant's products do not know, and have no reason to know, that the products contain inferior non-chocolate ingredients that are not sourced from cacao beans, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased the products multiple times from stores located in Chicago, Illinois during the Class Period. Nestle USA, Inc. produces and distributes food and beverage products. The Company offers bakery, chocolates, confectionery, snacks, coffee, fruit and vegetable juices, ice creams, and frozen food products. Nestle USA distributes its products through supermarket stores worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam C. York, Esq. Michael Aschenbrener, Esq. Kamberlaw LLC 220 N. Green St. Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (212) 920-3072 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 E-mail: ayork@kamberlaw.com masch@kamberlaw.com - and - Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Suite 192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (310) 400-1053 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 NEVADA: L.W. Sues Over IDEA and ADA Violation --------------------------------------------- L.W., by and through his Parent and Next Friend, C.W. and C.W., individually; T.L., by and through his Parent and Next Friend, I.L., and I.L., individually; C.R., by and through his Parent and Next Friend, M.R., and M.R., individually; C.L., by and through his Parent and Next Friend, H.L., and H.L., individually; F.U. and G.U., by and through their Parent and Next Friend, A.W. and A.W., individually; H.P., by and through her Parent and Next Friend, L.P. and L.P., individually; K.S. and M.S., by and through their Parent and Next Friend, A.S. and A.S., individually; L.B. and E.T., by and through their Parent and Next Friend, A.B. and A.B., individually; Z.A., by and through her Parent and Next Friend, A.A. and A.A., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; JHONE M. EBERT, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Nevada Department of Education; CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; and DR. BRENDA LARSEN-MITCHELL, in her official capacity as Interim Superintendent of Clark County School District, Case No. 2:24-cv-01800 (D. Nev., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought seeking to remedy a systemic failure which violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and that discriminate against students in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The egregious failure of the Nevada Department of Education (NDE) to ensure that Clark County School District (CCSD or District) complies with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has thrust children with special needs into an unprecedented crisis. This emergency requires immediate and decisive action. Each day of delay compounds the irreversible harm inflicted on these vulnerable children, robbing them of opportunities that can never be reclaimed. CCSD has maintained, and is maintaining, district-wide policies that systemically deny students their right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA and that discriminate against students in violation of the Section 504, and the ADA. The Plaintiffs are current school children with disabilities who are entitled to a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE) from CCSD, but have been denied, delayed, or otherwise deprived of access to a FAPE because of defendants' systemic failures to comply with federal law. CCSD has also systemically discriminated against the named plaintiffs in violation of Section 504 and the ADA. The Defendant Nevada Department of Education (NDE) is legally responsible for ensuring the District's compliance with IDEA. It is imperative that CCSD's public schools be prepared and equipped to provide critical services to students with disabilities. As detailed throughout this complaint, in nearly every area of special education, from preschool through the end of eligibility, NDE has failed to provide the resources, support and oversight essential to ensuring the CCSD public education system meets the needs of this vulnerable population, and the legal requirements of IDEA, Section 504 and the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current school children with disabilities. NDE is the department of the State of Nevada responsible for administering and enforcing laws related to public education.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori C. Rogich, Esq. ROGICH LAW FIRM, PLLC 11920 Southern Highlands Parkway, Suite 301 Las Vegas, NV 89141 Phone: 702.279.2491 Email: lori@rogichlawfirm.com - and - Hillary D. Freeman, Esq. FREEMAN LAW OFFICES, LLC 100 Canal Pointe Blvd, Suite 121 Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: 609.454.5609 Email: hillary@freemanlawoffices.com - and - Judith A. Gran, Esq. Catherine Merino Reisman, Esq. REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN & ZUBA LLP 19 Chestnut Street Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: 856.354.0071 Email: judith@rcglawoffices.com catherine@rcglawoffices.com - and - Jeffrey I. Wasserman, Esq. Gregory G. Little, Esq. WASSERMAN LITTLE LLC 1200 Route 22 East, Suite 200, #2238 Bridgewater, NJ 08807 Phone: 973.486.4801 Email: jwasserman@wassermanlittle.com glittle@wassermanlittle.com NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN: Tay Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERLINDA TAY, v. THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Case No. 7:22-cv-08379-KMK-VR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification. The Parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the Defendant's objections to the form, substance, and manner of notifying the putative collective and submit a joint notice proposal within 30 days. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending Motion. The Court therefore finds that it is appropriate to apply the “modest plus” standard here. 6 The Parties have engaged in significant certification-related discovery, including conducting sampling of the putative collective. And both rely extensively on that discovery in their papers. Contrary to Defendant’s framing, Plaintiff does not merely present “alleg[ations] of ‘general power over various employment decisions.’” Plaintiff attests to specific indicia of single-enterprise status, including the centralized payment system that forms the basis for her claims. And courts regularly hold such allegations and affidavits to be sufficient at this stage The Plaintiff moves for conditional certification as to her FLSA wage claims. Specifically, she seeks certification for a statewide collective of: "all current and former non-exempt patient care assistants, nurse assistants, physician assistants, surgical technicians, medical technicians, medical assistants, nursing attendants, care unit workers, patient pediatric assistants, and mental health workers" employed by NYPH." The Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on Jan. 31, 2023. On May 12, 2023, the Count entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order and referred the case to a magistrate judge for pre-trial purposes including discovery. On Nov. 13, 2023, in the midst of discovery, the Plaintiff filed a pre-motion letter in anticipation of the instant Motion. NYPH owns and operates a non-profit network of sixteen hospitals and medical treatment centers in New York State. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8946DD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. James B. Jackson, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC New York, NY The Defendant is represented by: James Stuart Frank, Esq. John Houston Pope, Esq. Adriana Stefanie Kosovych, Esq. Brian Gilbert Cesaratto, Esq. Jill K. Bilger, Esq. Paul DeCamp, Esq. EPSTEIN, BECKER, & GREEN PC New York, NY NEW YORK, NY: Court OKs Bid to Certify Class & Subclasses --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOCAL 2507, UNIFORMED EMTs, PARAMEDICS & FIRE INSPECTORS, Individually and on behalf of its current and former members; LOCAL 3621, EMS OFFICERS UNION, Individually and on behalf of its current and former members; NYC EMS SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Individually and on behalf of its current and former members; TONYA BOYD, CHRISTELL CADET, MARK CARRASQUILLO, LIZETTE CLARO, BEVERLY COBB, ALI COUTARD, SENCIA DATILUS, LAITRICE EDWARDS, ALICIA ELKADI, RONALD FLOYD, KAHLIA GRAHAM, RICHARD GUZMAN, MAGGIE HOPE, JASMIN HOWARD, ANGELA JONES, RAVIVARMAN KAILAYANATHAN, MELANIE MORENOKETCHUM, JENELLE PIERRE, SIMONE QUASHIE, JASON SAFFON, ALLISON SHAUGHNESSY, LAURA TORRES, ANDRE VALDEZ, LANCE WINFIELD, RONALD WOLFE, MARYLOU AURRICHIO on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated individuals, v. CITY OF NEW YORK on behalf of the Fire Department of the City of New York, Case No. 1:22-cv-10336-AT-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered an order: -- granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Class and Subclasses, consisting of: Class "all persons employed by the City of New York in the EMS Bureau of the New York City Fire Department in the titles of Emergency Medical Technician, Paramedic, Lieutenant, Captain, Deputy Chief, [and] Division Commander/Chief as of the commencement of this action and at any time during the preceding three-year period"; Race Subclass "all members of the Class "who identify as non-white"," Sex/Gender Subclass: all members of the Class "who identify as female"; and -- appointing class counsel. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 118. The Court finds that the lead plaintiffs "will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the [C]lass [and Subclasses]." The Plaintiffs, current and former members of the Emergency Medical Services ("EMS") Bureau of the Fire Department of the City of New York (the "FDNY") and their representative unions, bring this putative class action against the Defendant, alleging discriminatory pay practices, suppression of wages, and denial of employment opportunities on the basis of sex, gender, and/or race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the New York State Human Rights Law; and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint on Dec. 6, 2022. On Nov. 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification and to exclude the testimony of the City's expert, Michael A. Campion, Ph.D. See Pl. Mot. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DXp16h at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Settlement Class in Zarkower Gets Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN ZARKOWER, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, PETER FORTUNE, Individually, SALVATORE DIMAGGIO, Individually, ANDREW CHIN, Individually, PABLO DEJESUS, Individually, and JOHN and JANE DOE 1 through 50, Individually, (the names John and Jane Doe being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown), Case No. 1:19-cv-03843-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James Cho entered an order as follows: 1. To the extent terms are not defined in this Order, the Court adopts and incorporates the definitions in the Stipulation of Settlement for purposes of this Order. 2. The Court confirms certification of the following Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): "All persons who were (1) arrested by the New York City Police Department ("NYPD") and detained at the 114th Precinct between Nov. 11, 2013, and June 30, 2021; and (2) issued a Desk Appearance Ticket ("DAT"); and (3) further detained after being issued a DAT; and (4) debriefed during this further detention pursuant to the 114th Police Precinct Debriefing Practice. 3. For purposes of the settlement of this Action, and only for such purposes, and subject to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Court finds that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and any other applicable laws are satisfied with respect to final certification of the Settlement Class. 4. Pursuant to Paragraph 47 of the Stipulation of Settlement and Paragraphs 1-3 of the Addendum to the Stipulation of Settlement, the City shall pay each Eligible Class Member Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for each eligible Claim submitted. Such payment will be subject to deductions of any liens as described in the Stipulation of Settlement. 5. The Claims Administrator has calculated the total awards payout to be $828,000 ("Total Class Settlement Amount"). The City, in consultation with the Claims Administrator, shall make a best good faith estimate of the maximum amount that shall be deducted from any award due to Department of Finance liens and for New York child support liens. 6. The City shall pay the administration costs to KCC through the completion of this matter up to the agreed-upon total amount of $82,255.95. This amount does not include the media costs of $23,250, which the City has already paid. 7. The Court awards Class Counsel attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $400,000, and awards Class Representative Jonathan Zarkower $17,000 as a service award, with such attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards to be paid by the City consistent with the applicable provisions of the Stipulation of Settlement. Class Representative and Class Counsel shall execute and deliver to Defendants' Counsel all documents necessary to effect such payment to them, including, without limitation, General Releases and W-9s. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h8oAX9 at no extra charge.[CC] NEWREZ LLC: Alvarez Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------ Eugenio Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEWREZ LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Case No. 4:24-cv-03597 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 24, 2024), is brought alleging violations of the Texas Fair Debt Collection Act ("TDCA") and the laws of six other states whose debt collection laws are materially uniform, and seeks damages against the Defendant. SLS routinely violated Texas law and the laws of six other states by charging and collecting illegal processing fees when borrowers paid their monthly mortgage by phone ("Pay-to-Pay Fees"). SLS illegally charged homeowners fees up to $7.50 for each telephone payment. SLS paid third parties to process its Pay-to-Pay transactions. A substantial amount of the $7.50 Pay-to-Pay Fee was marked-up profit to SLS because its processors processed Pay-to-Pay transactions at a cost of $0.50 or less per transaction. SLS pocketed the difference between the amount paid by borrowers and the actual expense it paid its processors to process Pay-to-Pay transactions. This is an overcharge of up to $7.00 per transaction paid by Class Members. Despite its uniform contractual obligations to charge only fees explicitly allowed under the Uniform Mortgages and applicable law, SLS leveraged its position of power over homeowners and demanded exorbitant Pay-to-Pay Fees. Even if some fees were allowed, the mortgage uniform covenants and applicable law only allowed SLS to pass along the actual costs of fees incurred to it by the borrowers—here, less than a dollar per transaction. The Plaintiff paid these Pay-to-Pay Fees and brings this class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated class members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owned property in this District secured by a mortgage. Shellpoint is a large servicer of borrowers' residential mortgages ("Uniform Mortgages"), as was SLS.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 463-2101 Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 274-9420 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com - and - Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Email: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com NIMBLE FOR GOOD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suarez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALVIN SUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nimble For Good, PBC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06931 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2024) is a civil rights action against Nimble For Good for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.gonimble.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. The Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Gonimble.com. On August 9, 2024, he intended to purchase a new portable charger and searched on Google for the stores using the key term "power bank order online." He came across the Defendant's website and browsed the website, trying to analyze the available products. However, the Plaintiff faced many accessibility issues such as ambiguous labels for form fields, unfocusable interactive elements, inappropriate alternative texts on graphics. He was unable to complete the purchase independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. These access barriers have caused Gonimble.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Nimble For Good's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Nimble For Good, PBC operates the website that allows the user to view sustainable tech accessories, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: glevyfirm@gmail.com NY ELITE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Igartua Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NY ELITE ENTERPRISES 2 INC. d/b/a NY ELITE CANNABIS, Case No. 1:24-cv-07107 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website, www.nyelitecannabis.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 Plaintiff was injured when attempting to access the Defendant's Website around Sept. 9, 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 edible, "Island Time UP | 2:1, by Ayrloom" but encountered various access barriers, which denied him full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services, the suit says. 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. NY Elite is a legally licensed NYS stores, offering recreational cannabis products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com OFF-WHITE LLC: Abramson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Abramson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Off-White, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-06754 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Stadium Enterprises provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.off---white.com (hereinafter "Off---white.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Off---white.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 Stadium Enterprises' policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Off-White provides to the public a website known as Off---white.com which provides consumers with access to an array of clothing, shoes, and accessories which Defendant offers in connection with their physical location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: +1 347-941-4715 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com OPTAVIA LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Class Settlement Initial Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE ZELLER and ANGELICA ALPERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OPTAVIA LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00434-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 13, 2024, will move the Court for entry of an order: 1. Granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1; 2. Preliminarily certifying, for settlement purposes only, a Settlement Class in this matter comprised of: California customers enrolled in Optavia Premier from Oct. 1, 2017 to Mar. 17, 2022 and who had one automatic shipment and then cancelled; 3. Preliminarily appointing Plaintiff Angelica Alpert as Class Representative; 4. Preliminarily appointing Dovel & Luner LLP and Golomb Legal P.C as Class Counsel; 5. Preliminarily finding that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 6. Approving the proposed Notice Plan; and 7. Entering the Settlement Timeline and scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing. The Defendant is a health and wellness company focusing on providing comprehensive weight loss and lifestyle change programs to its customers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aSPhzk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Stephen Andrews, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: steven@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com - and - Kevin W. Fay, Esq. GOLOMB LEGAL P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 E-mail: kfay@golomblegal.com ORACLE CORP: Amsterdam Court's Securities Suit Ruling Overturned ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oracle Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2024, that on June 18, 2024, the Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the District Court of Amsterdam regarding admissibility, thus permitting the case to proceed. On August 14, 2020, The Privacy Collective (TPC), a foundation having its registered office in Amsterdam, filed a purported class action lawsuit against Oracle Nederland B.V, Oracle Corporation and Oracle America, Inc., Salesforce.com, Inc. and SFDC Netherlands B.V. in the District Court of Amsterdam. TPC alleges that the Oracle Defendants' Data Management Platform product violates certain articles of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the General Data Protection Regulation and the Dutch Telecommunications Act. TPC claims damages under a number of categories, including: "immaterial damages" (at a fixed amount of €500 per Dutch internet user); "material damages" (in that the costs of loss of control over personal data should be equated to the market value of the personal data for parties like the Oracle Defendants); compensation for losses suffered due to an alleged data breach (at a fixed amount of €100 per Dutch internet user); and compensation for the costs of the litigation funder (10% to 25% of the compensation awarded); and the (actual) cost of the proceedings and extrajudicial costs. Oracle filed its defense on March 3, 2021, and on December 29, 2021, the District Court issued a judgment, holding that all of TPC's claims were deemed inadmissible because of fundamental procedural flaws. TPC filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam challenging the District Court's judgment, except for the claims regarding the alleged data breach, which were dropped. Oracle is a technology/software company based in Austin, Texas. OZONE NETWORKS: Shnayderman Slams Sale of Unregistered Securities ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Shnayderman and Itai Bronshtein, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OZONE NETWORKS, INC. (d/b/a OPENSEA), Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-23616-CMA (S.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for their offer and sale of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which Plaintiffs will prove are each unregistered securities in violation of the New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Unlawful Act, the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, when Plaintiffs, and all other OpenSea users, purchased NFTs, they entered into a contract with Defendant where Plaintiffs paid fees to Defendant in exchange for Defendant's promises that Plaintiffs will receive their NFT and that their NFT has value, and in exchange for an express warranty that the NFT is not an unregistered security. Plaintiffs Shnayderman and Bronshtein, both Florida residents who invested in NFTs, and who have been subjected to Defendant's scheme to mislead and deceive investors, assert this claim on behalf of the New York Subclass. Plaintiffs Shnayderman and Bronshtein were deceived by Defendant into believing that the facilitation of NFTs via OpenSea were registered securities. The Defendant's misleading promotion of NFTs as not being securities renders the sale of such NFTs unlawful, say the Plaintiffs. Ozone Networks Inc, doing business as OpenSea, provides Internet based services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 3250 Mary Street, Suite 202 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com howard@moskowitz-law.com PARTY CITY HOLDINGS: Agostino Sues Over WARN Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Sonia Agostino, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PARTY CITY HOLDINGS INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-09379-CCC-JRA (D.N.J., Sept. 24, 2024), is brought for the recovery by the Plaintiff the Defendant of damages in the amount of 90 days' pay by reason of Defendant's violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the "WARN Act") and the Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act (the "NJ WARN Act"). The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant until they were all terminated as part of, or as a result of, a mass layoff ordered by Defendant on September 17, 2024. The Defendant terminated Plaintiff and Other Similarly Situated Former Employees, 181 persons in total, without at least 60 days advance written notice as required under the WARN Act and without at least 90 days advance written notice as required under the NJ WARN Act. As a consequence, the Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the WARN Act and the NJ WARN Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person and was employed by Defendant until her layoff without cause on September 17, 2024. PARTY CITY HOLDINGS INC., is a corporation duly licensed to do business in the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rob Davis, Esq. DAVIS LAW CENTER 3 Main St. Newark, NJ Phone: (973) 315-7566 Email: Rob@davislawcenterllc.com - and - Ezra Salami, Esq. EZRA LAW, P.C. 295 Front Street Dumbo, Brooklyn, 11201 Phone: (347) 696-7555 Email: ezra@ezralaw.co PELICIA HALL: Alexander Loses Bid to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ALEXANDER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, V. PELICIA E. HALL et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00021-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Sharion Aycock entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class; and -- denying the Defendants' Daubert Motions without prejudice. The Magistrate Judge will hold a status conference in due course. The Plaintiffs cannot survive a rigorous analysis of the commonality requirement. Class certification is not appropriate. On Feb. 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit challenging the conditions at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, otherwise known as Parchman. The Plaintiffs were housed at Parchman as inmates between Feb. 17, 2017, and the present. There are fourteen named Plaintiffs in the Fifth Amended Complaint, but the Plaintiffs indicate that they "bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of all persons who have been, are currently, or will be, confined at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman." The district court certified the following two classes: (1) Incompetent Detainee(s) All persons who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a crime in the State of Texas, and (a) who are ordered to a Texas Department of State Health Services facility where they are to receive competency restoration services; and (b) for whom the Texas Department of State Health Services receives a court order; but (c) who remained detained in a Texas county jail;" and (2) Insanity Aquittees "All persons who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a crime in the State of Texas and who are found not guilty by reason of insanity, and (a) who are ordered to receive evaluation-and treatment services at a Texas Department of State Health Services facility; (b) for whom the Texas Department of State Health Services receives the court order; but (c) who remain detained in a Texas county jail for more than 14 days" A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ra2HRl at no extra charge.[CC] PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Malka Files Suit Over Inaccurate Credit Report ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALON R. MALKA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 525002/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., September 16, 2024) is an action for actual and statutory damages brought by Plaintiff against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices. On February 6, 2024, the Plaintiff reviewed his credit report that was generated on February 3, 2024. On the credit report, Plaintiff observed a trade line from Defendant. The Defendant allegedly furnished a trade line to Plaintiff for $4,863.00, which is allegedly owed to Defendant with SYNCHRONY BANK as original creditor for account number 524363XXXXXXXXXX. On February 6, 2024, the Plaintiff called Defendant to dispute Defendant's tradeline amount. However, on March 15, 2024, the Plaintiff re-checked his credit report, and Defendant still did not mark the account as disputed account information, says the suit. The Defendant's publishing of such inaccurate and incomplete information has severely damaged the personal and credit reputation of Plaintiff and caused severe humiliation, emotional distress, headaches, and mental anguish. The injuries suffered by Plaintiff as a direct result of Defendant's violation, as alleged herein, are the type of injuries that the FDCPA was enacted to prevent, the suit contends. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, a subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc., specializes in working with people in debt repayment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot Elo, Esq. ELLIOT M. ELO, ESQ. PLLC 42 West 48th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY, 10036 Telephone: (212) 302-1257 E-mail: Elopacer@gmail.com PRO-VIGIL INC: Lopez Sues Over Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------- Alex Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PRO-VIGIL, INC., a Texas corporation, Case No. 5:24-cv-01090-OLG (W.D. Tex., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), alleging that Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Technicians required overtime compensation. The Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and members of the Collective as exempt from overtime compensation. The Defendant has failed to pay Technicians, including Plaintiff, overtime pay. The Defendant has a uniform policy and practice to not pay Technicians for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week. The Defendant's violations of the FLSA are not in good faith. Defendant is, and has been, well aware of its legal obligation to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and members of the Collective, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Field Service Technician in California. The Defendant is primarily in the business of operating a surveillance and security company which provides security systems and monitoring services for businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Kuhn, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. LEVENTHAL | LEWIS KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 710 Denver, CO 80209 Phone: (720) 699-3000 Facsimile: (866) 515-8628 Email: mkuhn@ll.law sengelson@ll.law PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Class Cert Hearing Set for Oct. 22 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. FORD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-04147-JHS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joel Slomsky entered an order that a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and the Defendant's Response in Opposition will be held on Oct. 22, 2024 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 13A, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Progressive perates as an insurance firm. The Company offers property, casualty, life, and health insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nAyEFy at no extra charge.[CC] RAINBOW USA INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rainbow USA Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-03728-LMP-ECW (D. Minn., Sept. 24, 2024), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.rainbowshops.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind. The Defendant offers clothing, shoes, and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, dresses, denim, bottoms, jackets, swimwear, loungewear, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: $9.4MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY AFRICA LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 1:21-cv-06176-NRM-RML SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock of Reconnaissance Energy Africa Ltd. ("ReconAfrica"), or its predecessor Lund Enterprises Corp., on the U.S. OTC market under the ticker symbols "RECAF," "LGDOD" and/or "LGDOF," between February 28, 2019 and September 7, 2021, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the "U.S. Settlement Class"):1 PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that the above-captioned litigation (the "U.S. Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the U.S. Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the U.S. Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "U.S. Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the U.S. Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached a proposed settlement of the U.S. Action for $9,425,000 Canadian dollars (subject to certain exchange rate adjustments) in cash (the "U.S. Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the U.S. Action. A related lawsuit against ReconAfrica in Canada is also being settled (the "Canadian Settlement"). These two settlements are part of a global settlement that is contingent upon the U.S. Settlement being approved by the U.S. Court, and the Canadian Settlement being approved by the Canadian Court. A hearing will be held on December 19, 2024 at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable Nina R. Morrison in Courtroom 6E North, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, United States Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, to determine (i) whether the proposed U.S. Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the U.S. Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the U.S. Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed U.S. Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether U.S. Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of U.S. Litigation Expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the U.S. Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the U.S. Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the U.S. Settlement Fund. The U.S. Notice and U.S. Proof of Claim and Release Form ("U.S. Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the website maintained by the U.S. Claims Administrator, www.ReconAfricaUSSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the U.S. Notice and U.S. Claim Form by contacting the U.S. Claims Administrator at In re Reconnaissance Energy Africa Ltd. Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 6929, Portland, OR 97228-6929, 1-888-285-0673. If you are a member of the U.S. Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed U.S. Settlement, you must submit a U.S. Claim Form postmarked or online no later than January 9, 2025. If you are a U.S. Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper U.S. Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the U.S. Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the U.S. Court in the U.S. Action. If you are a member of the U.S. Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the U.S. Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than November 28, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the U.S. Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the U.S. Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the U.S. Court in the U.S. Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the U.S. Settlement. Any objections to the proposed U.S. Settlement, the proposed U.S. Plan of Allocation, or U.S. Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the U.S. Court and delivered to U.S. Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than November 28, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the U.S. Notice. Please do not contact the U.S. Court, the Clerk's office, ReconAfrica, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed U.S. Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the U.S. Settlement should be directed to U.S. Lead Counsel or the U.S. Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the U.S. Notice and U.S. Claim Form, should be made to U.S. Lead Counsel: GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Garth Spencer, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 201-9150 info@glancylaw.com Requests for the U.S. Notice and U.S. Claim Form should be made to: In re Reconnaissance Energy Africa Ltd. Securities Litigation c/o Epiq P.O. Box 6929 Portland, OR 97228-6929 (888) 285-0673 www.ReconAfricaUSSecuritiesSettlement.com By Order of the Court SANDOZ INC: Health and Welfare Funds Sue Over Fraudulent Transfers ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1199SEIU NATIONAL BENEFIT FUND; 1199SEIU GREATER NEW YORK BENEFIT FUND; 1199SEIU NATIONAL BENEFIT FUND FOR HOME CARE WORKERS; 1199SEIU LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSES WELFARE FUND; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, DISTRICT COUNCIL 47, HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SANDOZ INC., SANDOZ GROUP AG, SANDOZ AG, and NOVARTIS AG, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04894 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 16, 2024) is an action to recover the value of fraudulent transfers that Sandoz made to hinder, delay, and defraud Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons from recovering billions of dollars owed to them because of Sandoz's illegal conduct in pricing generic pharmaceuticals. The Plaintiffs represent a proposed class of end payers ("End-Payer Plaintiffs" or "EPPs") who filed complaints against Sandoz and other defendants between 2016 and 2019. Those actions are pending in a consolidated multidistrict proceeding before the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation., MDL No. 2724 (the "Generic Drug Antitrust MDL"). Each EPP complaint alleges injuries arising from Sandoz's unlawful anticompetitive conduct that caused higher prices for generic drugs and unjustly enriched Sandoz. In addition to the EPPs' claims, Sandoz is a defendant in related actions brought by state attorneys general and other plaintiffs. In this action, the Plaintiffs seek remedies on behalf of themselves and similarly situated creditors of Sandoz, including (1) avoidance of the transfers and obligations to the extent necessary to satisfy their claims against Sandoz; (2) an attachment or other provisional remedy against the assets transferred and other property of the transferees; (3) an injunction against further disposition by Sandoz or the transferees of the assets transferred or of other property; and (4) any other relief the circumstances of this case may require. Plaintiffs 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, 1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund, 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund for Home Care Workers, and 1199SEIU Licensed Practical Nurses Welfare Fund are jointly administered health and welfare funds. Sandoz Inc. manufactures, markets and/or distributes more than 163 drugs in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. Adam J. Pessin, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com apessin@finekaplan.com - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco CA 94111-3359 Telephone: (415)-956-1000 E-mail: ddrachler@lchb.com - and - William J. Leonard, Esq. OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP Centre Square West 1500 Market Street, Suite 3400 Philadelphia, PA 19102-2101 Telephone: (215) 665-3228 E-mail: William.Leonard@obermayer.com - and - Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. John E. Sindoni, Esq. BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 E-mail: jsnyder@bonizack.com jsindoni@bonizack.com - and - Deborah R. Willig, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3666 Facsimile: (215) 561-5135 E-mail: dwillig@wwdlaw.com SBS TRANSPORT: Stokes Must Show Cause Why Action Should Continue ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANASSEH STOKES, v. SBS TRANSPORT, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-02084-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order that Plaintiff Must show cause, in writing, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. -- Failure to timely respond to this Order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. -- The Court also advises Plaintiff that filing a dismissal will not discharge this Order to Show Cause. -- The Court further orders both parties to show cause, in writing, why it should not impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Court's Aug. 16, 2024, Order. -- The parties shall respond to this Order by no later than Sept. 27, 2024. On Nov. 6, 2023, the parties stipulated to amend the scheduling order to extend their deadline to mediate to Jan. 12, 2024. In their stipulation, which was approved by the Court, the parties represented that extending the mediation deadline would not impact the class certification briefing schedule. On August 16, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to submit, by September 3, 2024, an updated joint status report setting forth a joint proposed case management schedule. The parties failed to comply with the Court’s Order. The parties did not file an updated joint status report or explain their failure to do so. SBS Transport provides auto-hauling service to the US & Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cqe5wF at no extra charge.[CC] SECURITY BENEFIT: Order on Joint Status Report Entered ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLINTON v. SECURITY BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-04038 (D. Kan., Filed July 22, 2020), the Hon. Judge Holly L. Teeter entered an order regarding joint status report. On Sept. 20, 2024, the parties filed a joint status report updating the Court on the status of outstanding discovery remaining prior to class certification briefing and the parties' plan for completing outstanding discovery. In the joint status report, the parties also request a 90-day extension to the current case schedule despite the fact that the Third Amended Scheduling Order put the parties on notice that "because this is now the second round of lengthy extensions future extensions are unlikely, and the parties must plan accordingly." The parties may file a formal motion requesting extensions of scheduling-order deadlines, but on the record before the Court, the Court does not find good cause for another 90-day extension to the existing case schedule. Among other issues, the Court is troubled that meet-and-confer discussions that occurred in July have not resulted in the service of amended discovery responses and no depositions have occurred or been scheduled. Any motion seeking further extensions must include a firm plan to complete discovery within the newly proposed timeframe, including firm dates for supplementations and firm dates for depositions -- not a firm date on which the parties will begin discussions about deposition scheduling. The nature of suit states Insurance Contract. Security Benefit provides insurance services.[CC] SIPARADIGM LLC: Horn Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI & PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Horn, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIPARADIGM, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-09459-MCA-JRA (D.N.J., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth and medical information, these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "protected health information" or "PHI" and "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). By obtaining, collecting, using and deriving a benefit from Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and other state and federal statutes and regulations as well as common law principles. Representative Plaintiff does not bring claims in this action for direct violations of HIPAA, but charges Defendant with various legal violations merely predicated upon the duties set forth in HIPAA. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Representative Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff and Class Members in the future. Representative Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring their information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach. The Defendant is a medical practice company offering molecular diagnostics, cytogenetics, anatomical pathology services and laboratory services using Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) to test for mutations in genes that can lead to genomic instability in breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared R. Cooper, Esq. ROBINSON YABLON COOPER & BONFANTE, LLP 232 Madison Avenue, Suite 909 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 725-8566 Facsimile: (212) 725-8567 Email: jared@rycbinjury.com SKIMS BODY: Bid for Class Certification Due June 9, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE PORCHIA, et al., v. SKIMS BODY, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02562-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered a case management scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Deadline to submit ADR stipulation Oct. 24, 2025 Last day to add parties or amend pleadings Oct. 31, 2025 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification June 9, 2025 Plaintiffs' disclosure of experts in support June 9, 2025 of class certification Skims' opposition to class certification Aug. 11, 2025 motion Skims' disclosure of experts in support Aug. 11, 2025 of opposition Plaintiffs' reply in support of class Oct. 10, 2025 certification Class Certification Hearing Nov. 6, 2025 The Court sets a case management conference for 35 days after issuing an order on class certification. Any party may seek modification of this Order for good cause, except that the parties may also modify discovery and expert disclosure deadlines by agreement. A request for an extension of any deadline set forth above must be filed at least seven days prior to the expiration of that deadline. Any request for an extension must be accompanied by a proposed order that includes a chart in the following format, with a Word version emailed to amopo@cand.uscourts.gov. Skims Body manufactures and sells women and men apparel. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oUhvMW at no extra charge.[CC] SKINNYCORP LLC: Faces Nunez Suit Over Deceptive Discount Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALBA NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SKINNYCORP LLC, d/b/a Threadless, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01976 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 3, 2024) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff to address Defendant's misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its website www.threadless.com. According to the complaint, the products at issue include all goods that have at any time been offered on the website, at a sale or discounted price from a higher reference price, including without limitation: t-shirts, sweatshirts, hoodies, headwear, accessories, wall art, and home decor, among others. The Defendant advertises fake and inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a false belief that the sale price is a deeply discounted bargain price. Anyone visiting the website who buys an item on "sale" from a stricken former or regular price is being misled. This is because that item has not been listed for sale or sold in the recent past on the website at the former price. Yet Defendant's use of inflated reference prices, strikethrough pricing and discounting, and purported limited time sales all lead reasonable consumers to believe that the products in fact had been listed for sale and sold on the website, at the regular price, in the recent past, for a substantial period of time. As a result, consumers, like Plaintiff, are deceived into spending money they otherwise would not have spent, purchasing items they would not have purchased, and/or spending more money for an item than they otherwise would have absent deceptive marketing, says the suit. SkinnyCorp LLC d/b/a Threadless is an online retailer of various apparel, headwear, accessories, wall art and home decor products, among hundreds of other categories. Through the website, Defendant sells its products to consumers in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 E-mail: awolf@milberg.com SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Data Breach Suit in Montana 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 June 13, 2024, a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Montana against Snowflake alleging that Snowflake failed to take reasonable measures to secure systems that contained consumer data, thereby allowing threat actors to access and exfiltrate the customers' data. In the weeks that followed, numerous additional class actions making the same or similar allegations were filed against Snowflake and/or customers whose consumer or employee data was exfiltrated. Among other claims, the complaints assert common law claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, as well as statutory claims, and seek an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as injunctive relief. The cases are at a 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 to Certify Injunctive Relief Class ----------------------------------------------------------- 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: -- certifying an injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2) and under Rule 23(b)(3) as to (1) whether Space Coast CU's policy and practice of denying applicants who are not U.S citizens or lawful permanent residents from equal consideration for loan products constitutes unlawful alienage discrimination under Section 1981, (2) what form of declaratory or injunctive relief is warranted, and (3) what amount of damages is warranted; -- appointing Mr. Rendon Leyva as class representative, and MALDEF as class counsel, and -- authorizing plaintiffs to issue their proposed notice. The Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff and Class Members (1) are non-U.S. citizens and not lawful permanent residents; (2) who were subject to Space Coast CU's policies and practices that intentionally discriminated against them on the basis of alienage; and (3) who suffered alienage discrimination in attempting to contract for a loan product with Space Coast CU. The Plaintiff Rendon Leyva is a resident of Ft. Pierce, Florida and has been a recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) since 2012. Space Coast is a state-chartered credit union headquartered in Melbourne, Florida. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=owJfRg 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 SUNWARRIOR VENTURES: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. SUNWARRIOR VENTURES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07227 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://sunwarrior.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant operates the Sunwarrior online retail store, as well as the Sunwarrior interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 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 SV OPCO LLC: Carter Sues to Recover Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Jessica Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SV Opco LLC and RegalCare Management Group LLC d/b/a Skyview Rehab and Nursing, Case No. 2:24-cv-09399 (D.N.J., Sept. 24, 2024), is brought to recover overtime wages they are owed (plus liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs) as a result of Defendants' unlawful policy of excluding additional compensation from the workers' "regular rates of pay" for purposes of calculating their overtime rates of pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act and Connecticut's wage collection statutes (collectively the "Connecticut Wage Acts"). The Plaintiff and the putative FLSA collective members are current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt workers and were subject to Defendants' unlawful common policy of paying overtime for hours over 40 in a workweek at rates Defendants calculated without including the additional compensation the workers received (e.g. payments referenced on the workers' paystubs as, inter alia, "Shift3 Regular" and "Weekend Shift3"), and which were thus lower than the overtime rates the workers were entitled to receive. As a result, Defendants failed to pay hourly-paid, non-exempt workers including Plaintiff for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek in a workweek at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay, in violation of the FLSA and Connecticut Wage Acts, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt Certified Nursing Assistant from approximately September 2021 through May 2024. The Defendants own and operate Skyview Rehab and Nursing, a rehab and nursing facility that provides short-term rehabilitation and long-term skilled nursing programs to patients and residents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Eric Sands, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Pl Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com TEIJIN AUTOMOTIVE: Settlement in Hummel Class Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER HUMMEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TEIJIN AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-10341-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Matthew Leitman entered an order that: 1. The final approval motion and the fees, costs, and service award motions are granted. 2. The Court hereby certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Settlement Class consisting of individuals to whom Teijin sent notice of the data-security incident that Teijin announced in December 2022, defined as follows: Settlement Class "All individual U.S. residents to whom Teijin sent notice of the Ransomware Attack that Teijin announced on or around December 13, 2022." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judge and Magistrate Judge presiding over the Litigation, any members of the Judges' respective staffs, and immediate members of the Judges' respective families; (2) officers, directors, members and shareholders of Teijin; (3) persons who timely and validly request exclusion from and/or opt-out of the Settlement Class and the successors and assigns of any such excluded persons; and (4) any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity or occurrence of the Ransomware Attack or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 3. Appointment of Class Representatives: The Court appoints Plaintiff Jennifer Hummel as Class Representative of the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). 4. Appointment of Class Counsel: The Court appoints Plaintiff's attorneys Patrick A. Barthle of Morgan & Morgan and Ryan D. Maxey of Maxey Law Firm, P.A. as Settlement Class Counsel. 5. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: Class Counsel moved for an award of Attorneys' fees and litigation expenses on June 11, 2024, which Teijin did not oppose. Class Counsel requested $397,386.92 in Attorneys' fees and $3,541.83 in litigation costs. The Court finds that Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and costs is fair and reasonable, particularly in light of the results achieved through the Litigation as well as the contingent nature of the fee award. Accordingly, Class Counsel are awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $397,386.92 and litigation costs in the amount of $3,541.83. These amounts shall be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 6. Plaintiff moved for a Service Award on June 11, 2024, which Teijin did not oppose. Plaintiff requested a service award of $5,000.00. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for a Service Award is fair and reasonable, particularly in light of the results obtained for the Settlement Class as a direct result of Plaintiff’s willingness to act as a class representative and assist Class Counsel in this litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded a Service Award in the amount of $5,000.00. 7. Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of the Settlement Class and Amended Motion for Service Award, Attorney's Fees, and Expenses are granted. Teijin is a manufacturer of highly-engineered products for dynamic market segments, including automotive, heavy truck, marine and recreational vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aJCu9z at no extra charge.[CC] TEKSYSTEMS INC: Avery Bid for Partial Summary Judgment OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BO AVERY, et al., v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02733-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, -- granting the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to consider whether another party's materials should be sealed, -- denying TEK's motion to strike, and -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file responses to Defendant's objections. Interpreting all the evidence in the light most favorable to TEK, a reasonable trier of fact could not find TEK's Recruiters meet all the requirements of California's administrative exemption. In sum, TEK bears the burden of identifying evidence sufficient to support a finding Recruiters' job duties satisfy all the administrative exemption requirements. Drawing all reasonable inferences in TEK's favor, TEK has failed to meet its burden. In sum, the Court denies Defendant's motion to strike Major's declaration. But, as this Order explains, the Court did not rely on the declaration in resolving Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. A certified class of Recruiters for TEKsystems, Inc. allege TEK improperly classifies them as exempt from California overtime, wage, and hour laws and therefore illegally underpays Recruiters TEK is an information technology staffing and services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AuwsUH at no extra charge.[CC] TIKTOK INC: Edwards Sues Over Illegal Spying and Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Edwards (as the guardian of D.B. Barlow), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIKTOK, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-02039 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2024), is brought as a petition to compel TikTok, Inc. to arbitrate this dispute and the thousands of others similar to it which seek to hold TikTok responsible for the years it has spent illegally spying on and manipulating the children who use its deeply problematic application. TikTok has been at the center of a global controversy since it was caught spying on, and stealing sensitive personal information from, millions of its users. Many of those users are children. Tens of thousands of those minors' guardians—and individual users of TikTok are trying to bring individual arbitrations against TikTok pursuant to the arbitration clause that TikTok required its users to assent to as part of its user agreement. But TikTok has refused to arbitrate any of these claims and is forcing Petitioner (and all others like her) to pay all arbitration fees herself, contrary to the applicable arbitration rules. Accordingly, Petitioner must petition this Court for an order compelling arbitration for her and the thousands of other parents, guardians, and individuals that TikTok is stonewalling. Petitioner's thirteen-year-old daughter first downloaded TikTok in 2019 when she was just eight years old. When Petitioner allowed her daughter to first download TikTok, she believed the app was a safe and silly platform for her daughter and her friends to share dance videos. That assumption turned out to be false: in reality, TikTok is anything but safe for children. In a reckless drive to maximize advertising revenue in the United States, TikTok designed and marketed its social media platform to be insidiously addictive to our nation's most vulnerable: children. It then deceptively advertised its platform as safe for children, fully aware that children are uniquely susceptible to harms arising out of compulsive use of social media platforms like TikTok. The defective design of its platform has substantially contributed to a mental health crisis affecting millions of children in the United States, says the complaint. The Petitioner, Brittany Edwards, is the mother and guardian of D. B. Barlow, her thirteen-year-old daughter, and they are both residents of Hartford, Connecticut. TikTok, Inc., is a for-profit entity, incorporated in the State of California, which operates a social media application and platform known as "TikTok." TikTok Inc..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ivy Ngo, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 400N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (646) 350-0527 Email: ingo@fnf.law - and - Edward Normand, Esq. Kyle Roche, Esq. Velvel Freedman, Esq. Alex Potter, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 155 E. 44th Street, Suite 905 New York, NY 10017 Phone: (646) 350-0527 Email: tnormand@fnf.law kroche@fnf.law vel@fnf.law apotter@fnf.law - and - Tibor L. Nagy Jr., Esq. Tracy O. Appleton, Esq. Chris Schafbuch, Esq. David Moosmann, Esq. DONTZIN NAGY & FLEISSIG 31 E 62nd Street New York, NY 10065 Phone: (212) 717-2900 Email: tibor@dnfllp.com tappleton@dnfllp.com cschafbuch@dnfllp.com dmoosmann@dnfllp.com TIKTOK INC: Griffith Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADINE GRIFFITH; et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TIKTOK, INC., a corporation; BYTEDANCE, INC., a corporation, Case No. 5:23-cv-00964-SB-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Oct. 25, 2024, for reconsideration of the order denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification, or for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification. TikTok operates as a free service and social media application for creating and sharing short mobile videos. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ssayP6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq. Marc E. Masters, Esq. Christopher J. Lee, Esq. BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW, LINCENBERG, DROOKS & NESSIM, LLP 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 E-mail: erhow@birdmarella.com mmasters@birdmarella.com clee@birdmarella.com - and – Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. Kara M. Wolke, Esq. Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY, LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com kwolke@glancylaw.com glinkh@glancylaw.com - and – Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq. Steven Sklaver, Esq. Michael Gervais, Esq. Y. Gloria Park, Esq. John W. McCauley, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com mgervais@susmangodfrey.com gpark@susmangodfrey.com jmccauley@susmangodfrey.com TRC ENGINEERS: Euson Sues to Recover Untimely and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Euson, Jr., Individually and For All Others Similarly Situated v. TRC ENGINEERS, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01168-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2024), is brought to recover untimely wages, unpaid overtime wages, and other damages from the Defendant. Despite being manual workers, TRC fails to properly pay Euson and the other Hourly Technicians their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which they earned such wages. Instead, TRC uniformly pays Euson and the other Hourly Technicians on a bi-weekly basis. In this regard, TRC failed to timely pay earned wages to Euson and the other Hourly Technicians. Additionally, TRC does not pay Euson and the other Hourly Technicians for all the hours they work. Instead, TRC requires Euson and the other Hourly Technicians to unload electronic and photography equipment from their vehicles each evening, bring that equipment into their residences, charge the equipment in their residences each night, and load the equipment back into their vehicles each morning (TRC's "equipment charging policy"). This takes Euson and the other Hourly Technicians 5 to 10 minutes before their shifts each workday and 5-10 minutes after their shifts each workday "off the clock." They are thus not paid for this time. TRC's equipment charging policy violates the FLSA and NYLL by depriving Euson and the other Hourly Technicians of overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by TRC as one of the Hourly Technicians in Onondaga County, New York. TRC is an engineering services provider that employs numerous people in New York State, a majority of whom are "manual workers."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan G. Files, Esq. Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC 7030 East Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Phone: 315-314-8000 Fax: 315-446-7521 Email: rfiles@gclawoffice.com fgattuso@gclawoffice.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com TREASURE BAY: Billups Files Suit Over Unfair Tender Offer --------------------------------------------------------- GUY C. BILLUPS III, personally, as personal representative of the Estate of Guy C. Billups Jr., and as trustee of the Guy C. Billups, Jr. Living Trust, and WALTER G. BILLUPS, personally and as personal representative of the Estate of Guy C. Billups Jr., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated former stockholders of Treasure Bay Gaming & Resorts, Inc., Plaintiffs v. BRADFORD T. WHITMORE, SUSAN J. VARNES, WILLIAM BRYCE, and TREASURE BAY GAMING & RESORTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2024-0966 (Del. Ch., Sept. 17, 2024) is an action, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated former stockholders of Treasure Bay Gaming & Resorts, Inc., to assert claims against Defendants arising out of a coercive and unfair tender offer made by Bradford Whitmore, the majority and therefore controlling stockholder of Treasure Bay, with the active assistance of the Company, which offer omitted material information and failed to provide fair value to the stockholders. Whitmore, Treasure Bay's majority and therefore controlling stockholder and one of its three directors, made a tender offer, dated September 17, 2021, for the Treasure Bay stock "held by any minority shareholder (not less than the total amount of each shareholder's position) at a price per share of $2.50." According to the complaint, the tender offer was made through a materially misleading and incomplete offer. Although acknowledging that the tender offer was being made by the majority stockholder of Treasure Bay who was also a director, the September 17, 2021 tender offer letter referenced only financial statements for the year ending December 2020, provided no additional financial information, and conceded that Whitmore could be deemed to be in possession of undisclosed material information. The coercive and uninformed tender offer had its desired effect. Nearly 4,000,000 shares were tendered and transferred to Whitmore for total consideration of approximately $10,000,000, says the suit. The Plaintiffs held 36,667 shares of Treasure Bay stock and tendered all of these shares in the tender offer. All shares were cashed out. Treasure Bay is a Delaware corporation that, among other things, operates a beachside casino resort in Biloxi, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: S. Mark Hurd, Esq. Matthew R. Clark, Esq. Louis F. Masi, Esq. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 Telephone: (302) 658-9200 E-mail: shurd@morrisnichols.com mclark@morrisnichols.com lmasi@morrisnichols.com TRELLIS RESEARCH: Harrell Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trellis Research, Inc. The case is styled as Markey Harrell, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Trellis Research, Inc., Case No. CACE24013684 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Sept. 24, 2024). Trellis Research -- https://www.trelliscompany.org/research/ -- designs and implements customized strategies focused on higher education.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-907-1136 Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com UIPATH INC: Faces Brunozzi Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures --------------------------------------------------------------- UiPath, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2024, that on August 6, 2024, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UiPath, CEO Daniel Dines, former CEO Robert Enslin, and CFO Ashim Gupta. The case is captioned "Brunozzi v. UiPath, et al." The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class to include purchasers of UiPath call options and sellers of put options, and alleges that defendants made material misstatements and omissions, including regarding the company's AI-powered Business Automation Platform and the company's strategy for, the success of, and customer demand for the platform. On August 19, 2024, this was consolidate with another action. The court has not yet ruled on these motions. UiPath, Inc. is a New York tech company that operates UiPath Business Automation Platform, a digital automation program at scale. UIPATH INC: Faces Securities Suit Over Disclosures -------------------------------------------------- UiPath, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2024, that on September 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UiPath, then Co-CEO Daniel Dines, and Chief Financial Officer Ashim Gupta, captioned "In re UiPath, Inc. Securities Litigation." The initial complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleged that defendants made material misstatements and omissions, including regarding UiPath's competitive position and its financial results. On January 26, 2024, the lead plaintiff in the 2023 Securities Action filed an amended complaint, and on March 26, 2024, filed a further amended complaint, which alleges Securities Act claims under Sections 11 and 15 as well as Exchange Act claims under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a). In support of the Securities Act claims, the plaintiff alleges material misstatements and omissions in UiPath's April 2021 Registration Statement, including regarding its competitive position and financial results. The operative complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired UiPath common stock between April 21, 2021 and September 27, 2022. It seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and other unspecified relief as the Court deems appropriate. Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on April 23, 2024. UiPath, Inc. is a New York tech company that operates UiPath Business Automation Platform, a digital automation program at scale. UIPATH INC: Faces Steiner Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures -------------------------------------------------------------- UiPath, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2024, that on June 20, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UiPath, CEO Daniel Dines, former CEO Robert Enslin, and CFO Ashim Gupta. The case is captioned "Steiner v. UiPath, et al." The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or acquired UiPath common stock between December 1, 2023 and May 29, 2024, and alleges that defendants made material misstatements and omissions, including regarding the company's AI-powered Business Automation Platform and the company's strategy for, the success of, and customer demand for the platform. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief as the court deems appropriate. On August 19, 2024, this was consolidated with another action. UiPath, Inc. is a New York tech company that operates UiPath Business Automation Platform, a digital automation program at scale. UNITED HARDWARE: Website Breaches ADA, Frost Says ------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. United Hardware Distribution Co. d/b/a Hardware Hank, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-03685 (D. Minn., Sept. 17, 2024) arises because Defendant's website www.hardwarehank.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiffs and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of Plaintiffs' experience visiting Defendant's website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, the Plaintiffs found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs, full and equal access to important website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted website users. The Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief, will continue to be injured and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the suit. In addition to the claim under the ADA, the Plaintiffs also assert a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. United Hardware Distribution Co., d/b/a Hardware Hank, operates the website that offers tools, home improvement materials, plumbing and electrical supplies, lawn and garden furnishings and supplies, farming and pet supplies, cleaning supplies, sporting goods, clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, activewear, outerwear and shoes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com UNITED SERVICES: Davidson Must File Updated Class Definition Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD J. DAVIDSON, a married man, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00527-JWH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb entered a supplemental briefing order as follows: -- Davidson is directed to file no later than Oct. 4, 2024, a Notice of Plaintiff's updated proposed class definition. -- Davidson is also directed to file by that date supplemental briefing of no more than 15 pages in support of his Motion. -- Davidson's motion will be under submission upon the Court's timely receipt of the parties' respective supplemental briefs. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3k6Msy at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSAL CITY: Underpays Employees, Lawrence Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW LAWRENCE, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; UNIVERSAL STUDIOS HOLLYWOOD, a business entity of unknown form; MELISSA VANTREASE, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV23912 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 16, 2024) alleges that Defendants, and each of them, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and the California Business & Professions Code, and seeks redress for these violations. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation, failure to provide with meal and rest periods, failure to furnish with an accurate, itemized statement, failure to pay all wages due and certain at the time of termination or within 72 hours of resignation, failure to keep required payroll records, failure to provide required California paid sick days, failure to reimburse all necessary expenditures, failure to produce requested records, and engagement in unlawful and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the Class Members who are defined as all current and former employees within the State of California who, at any time from four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, are or were employed as non-exempt hourly employees by Defendants. Universal City Studios LLC, doing business as Universal Pictures is an American film production and distribution company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. David Yeremian, Esq. Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. Matthew J. Carraher, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd, Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: emil@d.law d.yeremian@d.law n.haritoonian@d.law m.carraher@d.law VENTURA FOODS: Class Settlement in Gramstad Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIM GRAMSTAD and AISAN ROUHANINIA ATHARI, individually and as representatives of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the VENTURA FOODS, LLC PROFIT SHARING 401(k) PLAN, v. VENTURA FOODS, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 8:22-cv-02290-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb entered an order granting the unopposed motion of Plaintiffs Jim Gramstad and Aisan Rouhaninia Athari, individually and as representatives of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Ventura Foods, LLC Profit Sharing 401(k) Plan, for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court concludes that this matter is appropriate for resolution without a hearing. -- Settlement Class The Settlement Class is defined as all participants and beneficiaries of the Plan beginning October 1, 2016, and running through March 31, 2024.15 There are approximately 3,000 to 5,000 Class Members with account balances and approximately $250,000,0000 in Plan Assets. -- Settlement Amount Defendants will pay $1,500,00 into an escrow account established for the benefit of the class and Class Counsel and trusteed by an escrow agent.17 Following deductions for (1) any Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses; (2) any Court- approved Class representative service awards; and (3) administrative expenses, the net settlement amount will be distributed to the Class in accordance with the Plan of Allocation -- Class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) because the Class Representatives assert claims on behalf of the Plan as a whole, and prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants and would be dispositive of the interests of other class members as a practical matter or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. -- The Court appoints Christina Humphrey Law, P.C., and Tower Legal Group, P.C. as Class Counsel, and APPOINTS Jim Gramstad and Aisan Rouhaninia Athari, the Named Plaintiffs, as the Class Representatives. The Plaintiffs commenced this action in December 2022. The Plaintiffs brought this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), on behalf of the Plan against the Defendants. Ventura is a food manufacturing and innovation company specializing in custom and branded products for restaurants and retailers. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Db2301 at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Devane Seeks to File Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY DEVANE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC. f/k/a WALMART STORES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00709-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting her to file her class certification motion and brief, along with their exhibits, redacted and/or under seal. Additionally, the Plaintiff expects that she will need to file her reply to the class certification motion redacted and/or under seal. In support of this Motion, the Plaintiff asserts that portions of her class certification motion (and reply) and brief, and their exhibits, will contain evidence that is marked as "Confidential" pursuant to the Northern District of Alabama's Confidentiality Order. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States and 23 other countries. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2z6ic1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: O'Brien Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waste Management, Inc. The case is styled as Dawn E. O'Brien, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Waste Management, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-03621 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 25, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Waste Management, Inc. -- https://www.wm.com/ -- is the leading provider of comprehensive waste management, offering services such as garbage collection, recycling pickup and dumpster rental.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N MOHAMMED 539 W Commerce St #1899 Dallas, TX 75208 Phone: (972) 767-9099 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: nayeem@nnmpc.com - and - Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 x114 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com WATA INC: Knight Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Classes --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB KNIGHT, JACK CRIBBS, JASON DOHSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WATA INC. and COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01873-GPG-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the Classes consisting of: -- Proposed "Nationwide Class" "All individuals in the United States who directly purchased encapsulation and video game grading services from Wata, Inc. from May 10, 2019 through May 10, 2022 who did not have their orders returned within the turnaround times stated by Wata, Inc. on the company's website;" -- Proposed Subclass of "California Residents" "All California residents who directly purchased encapsulation and video game grading services from Wata, Inc. from May 10, 2019 through May10, 2022 who did not have their orders returned within the turnaround times stated by Wata, Inc. on the company's website." -- Proposed Subclass "After Sale Of Wata" "All individuals in the United States who directly purchased encapsulation and video game grading services from Wata, Inc. or Collectors Universe from July 1, 2021 through May 10, 2022 who did not have their orders returned within the turnaround times stated by Wata on the company's website." The Class Period consists of "all Wata customers who did not have turnaround times met from May 10, 2019 through May 10, 2022." However, there are also subclasses based on California claims and the time period after Wata was sold to and operated by Collectors Universe from California (July 1,2021). As such, the Plaintiffs request the certification of a California sub-class as follows: The Plaintiff Knight made his purchase from Wata on June 8, 2020. The Plaintiff Knight did not receive his games back until March 6, 2022, which is 636 days after he placed his order for a 180 day turnaround time. Wata is a video game grading company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 24, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t0sNSS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janeen Carlberg, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JANEEN CARLBERG 1912 N. Broadway, Suite 106 Santa Ana, CA 92706 Telephone.: (714) 665-1900 E-mail: jcarlberg@lawfirmoc.com WELLS FARGO: Cobb Sues Over Under-Payment of Interest ----------------------------------------------------- Darren Cobb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; and WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES, LLC (d/b/a WELLS FARGO ADVISORS), Case No. 3:24-cv-06696 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2024), is brought arising out of Wells Fargo's drastic under-payment of interest to its own customers in its cash sweep program. Wells Fargo underpaid its customers in violation of its fiduciary and contractual duties in order to enrich itself at its customers' expense. Rather than pay its customers a reasonable rate of interest on their cash as it was required to do, Wells Fargo instead paid miniscule rates to its customers, while it earned hundreds of millions of dollars on that cash due to rising interest rates. In a typical cash sweep program for a brokerage customer, the brokerage firm moves uninvested cash from a customer's brokerage account into an interest-bearing account that generates returns for the client. When Wells Fargo sweeps its customers' cash into its cash sweep program, Wells Fargo uses that cash to generate outsized returns for itself, due to the spread between the interest income that Wells Fargo earns on the cash in high interest rate environments, and the amount of interest that it pays its clients. Wells Fargo is required to act as a fiduciary in the best interests of its clients. That includes a duty to put its customers' interests ahead of its own when recommending and making investments for them. Wells Fargo explicitly promised to pay its clients with Wells Fargo retirement accounts a "reasonable rate" of interest when Wells Fargo sweeps their cash into its cash sweep program. In addition, under the law, the agreement between Wells Fargo and its clients carries with it an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. That includes an implied promise that neither party will do anything to frustrate the fruits of customers' bargain with Wells Fargo. Rather than act as a fiduciary in the best interests of Wells Fargo's account holders, or fulfill its contractual and implied covenant obligations to its customers, Wells Fargo used its customers' funds to enrich itself at the expense of its own clients, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Nevada, who maintained a Traditional Individual Retirement Account ("IRA") that was managed by Defendant Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC d/b/a Wells Fargo Advisors ("Wells Fargo Advisors"). Wells Fargo & Company operates as a diversified financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 819-3470 Email: jonathanu@blbglaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***