/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241008.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, October 8, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 202
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic Substances, Moon Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Bialas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Rapp Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Rose Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Sellers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Weigel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
417 THROOP BAR: Shlush-Reyna Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
A SHOC BEVERAGE: Montera Sues Over Energy Beverages' False Labels
ACCESS SPORTS: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Giguere Claims
ALCHEMEE LLC: O'Dea Suit Transferred to C.D. California
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Bland Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls
ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Class Certification Filing Due July 28, 2025
AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Dismiss with Prejudice Certain Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Wins Summary Judgment for 1st, 3rd Causes of Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Pizza Suit Over Class Amex-Branded Cards
APL LOGISTICS: Ponce Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
APPLE CORE: Hermosillo Suit Removed to C.D. California
APPLE INC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
ARAMARK SERVICES: Nyannor Civil Rights Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
ASCEND FINANCE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid
ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES: Oracle America Files Suit in Del. Super. Ct.
ASTER CONSTRUCTION: Carpenters-Contractors Sues Over Wages Owed
AT&T INC: Ghanaat Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
ATS PRODUCTS: Zelaya-Gomez Suit Removed to N.D. California
AVIS BUDGET: Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed
B2TM HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Suarez Suit Alleges
BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 8
BIOVIE INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit Over Medications
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Faces Labor Suit in Ontario Superior Court
BLUEBIRD BIO: Faces Gill Securities Suit Over IPO, Disclosures
BOARD OF EDUCATION: Mulgrew Files Petition in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
BRADCON LLC: Enriquez Suit Removed to C.D. California
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Certain Exhibits Stricken from Class Cert Bid
CAPSTONE GREEN ENERGY: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
CARCO GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Taylor Extended to Nov. 7
CENTRAL VETERINARY: Chader Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
CITIBANK N.A.: Letidas Logistics Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CITY OF HOPE: Manley Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Todd Suit Says
COMERICA BANK: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 22
CRITERION COLLECTION: Discloses Subscribers' Info, McGuire Says
CSC SERVICEWORKS: Qamar Files Suit in E.D. New York
DANIELLE OUTLAW: Flacco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
DELINEA INC: Seeks Summary Judgment v. Koeller
DIRECTTOU LLC: To Sues Over Video Privacy Act Violation
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Barnes Wins Bid for Class Certification
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Morgan Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
DONALD TRUMP: Must File Class Cert Response by Oct. 17
DUDE PRODUCTS: Class Settlement in Charleston Suit Gets Final Nod
EATON CORP: Chambers Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
ELON MUSK: Court Certifies Class in Pampena Securities Suit
EMPIRE BUILDING: Rondon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Court Vacates Oct. 9 Dispositive Bid Date
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Phillips Sues Over Illegally Collected Fees
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Logan Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia
FALFURRIAS CAPITAL: Bellyard Partners Sues Over Deceptive Conduct
FASTENAL COMPANY: Ismail Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Breaches
FCA US: Objections to Report Overruled in Part
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Villanueva Suit Removed to C.D. California
FIVE GUYS:: Removes Wilkins ADA Suit to E.D. Pa.
FLO HEALTH: Court Tosses Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Scheduling Order
FLO HEALTH: Joint Bid to File Class Cert Under Seal Denied as Moot
GEORGIA: Wins Summary Judgment v. Georgia Advocacy Office
GEV WIND: Nichols Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Technicians
GILEAD SCIENCES: Searcy Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
GITHUB INC: Court Stays Trial Court Proceedings
GUNSTER YOAKLEY: Ohlman Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
HHR REAL: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Properties
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Wins Bid for Judgment vs Henkel
HOME PARTNERS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
IKEA DISTRIBUTION: Bernards Suit Removed to N.D. California
INDEGENE INC: Class Cert Reply in Progressive Extended to Oct. 11
IPIC THEATERS: Johnson Files Suit in C.D. California
ISS FACILITY: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
JENNIFER TATTANELLI: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JERICO PICTURES: Werner Files Suit in S.D. Florida
JOEL BIEBER: Roark Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
JOHN WOOD: Response Filing to Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 18
JOSEPH KELLY: Tapia Suit Removed from State Ct. to D. New Mexico
JP MORGAN: Redactions of Class Cert Transcripts in USVI OK'd
KANDI TECH: Ventakaraman Bid for Class Cert. Partly OK'd
KUNES COUNTRY AUTOMOTIVE: Cullen Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
LAMOILLE HEALTH: Class Settlement in Marshall Suit Gets Final Nod
LOUISIANA: Suit Seeks to Certify Inmate Class & Subclass
LUTHMAN BACKLUND: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Senior Suit Says
MAC COSMETICS: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert-Related Deadlines
MARINHEALTH MEDICAL: Fact Discovery Modified to May 20, 2026
MAUI, HI: Hoyte Sues Over Hawai'i Revised Statutes Violation
MAZDA MOTOR: Cauller Sues Over Vehicles with Dangerous Defect
MD NOW MEDICAL: Sabin Sues Over Failure to Secure & Safeguard PHI
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Loses Summary Judgment v. Masten
MOTION INDUSTRIES: Driz Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Preston Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees
NEW ORIENTAL EDUCATION: Sued Over SEC Disclosures
NEXT LEVEL: Zuniga Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
NORTHERN TRUST: Class Certification Sched Order Revised
NUNA HARVEST: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Wheatley Suit Alleges
NUORI INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Picon Suit Alleges
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT: Tensae Suit Transferred to C.D. California
ONELIVE LLC: Stephenstills.com Inaccessible to Blind, Williams Says
PACKER SHOES: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Gaspa Says
PALO ALTO: Court Terminates Patterson Suit
PARACHUTE HOME: Faces Picon Suit Over Blind's Access to Website
PAWN AMERICA: Fact Discovery in Thomas Suit Due Sept. 26, 2025
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Link Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
PHARMACANN OF NEW YORK: Blind Can't Access Website, Wheatley Says
PHE INC: Delong Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping Activities
PURE HEALTH: Liable to Investors' Ponzi Scheme Losses, Suit Claims
QUANOVATE TECH INC: Moreno Sues Over Privacy Act Violation
RANGE RESOURCES: Court Adopts Modified Class Definition in Rupert
RANGE RESOURCES: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Rupert Suit
RB HEALTH (US) LLC: O'Dea Suit Transferred to C.D. California
REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Filing for Class Cert Extended to Jan. 27, 2025
RENEWABLE INNOVATIONS: Melton Sues Over 29.2% Stock Price Drop
RESCUE SPA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Claims
ROBLOX CORPORATION: Martin Sues Over Video Gaming Product Injuries
ROCKET COMPANIES: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony in Shupe Tossed
ROCKET COMPANIES: shupe Renewed Bid for Class Cert Denied
SABAL PALM: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Class Suit Says
SAM'S WEST: Dawar Sues Over Mislabeled Avocado Oil Product
SCHOOL MANAGEMENT: Svoboda Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
ST. LOUIS, MO: Cody Seeks Leave to File Narrower Class Definition
STAKE CENTER: Class Cert Filing in Loonsfoot Extended to Nov. 14
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Certification Bids OK'd Antitrust Suit
THEORY LLC: Demaio Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls
TSAROUHIS LAW: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Yoo Lawsuit
TWITTER INC: Seeks Leave to File Instanter Sur-reply in Schobinger
TYSON FOODS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
UNITED BANK: Davis and Ogletree Sue Over Alleged ERISA Violations
UNITED GROCERY WORKERS: Machuca Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
UNITED HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 27, 2025
UNITED SERVICES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Fitzpatrick Says
UNITED STATES: Discovery in Lewis Must Conclude by Dec. 31
UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Valdez
US DERMATOLOGY: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Roseberry Says
VF OUTDOOR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Bishop Suit Alleges
VITALS CONSUMER: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Tossed
VIVID SEATS: Donets Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
WALMART INC: Ivanoff Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses
WATERFORD COUNTRY: Ortega Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI & PII
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Nov. 22
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court Stays Bowles Suit
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Plaintiffs Seek to Alter Final Judgment
WE CATCH EM: Abramson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WG3 LLC: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
WHALECO INC: Favichia Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN: Mendieta Suit Removed to C.D. California
WILSHIRE CONSTRUCTION: Carpenters-Contractors Sues Over Wages Owed
WIRELESS VISION: Cruz Suit Removed to C.D. California
WOODFIELD REGENCY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Payne Alleges
YAAD MAN THING: Allen Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic Substances, Moon Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH MOON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-05388-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 27, 2024) is a class action
seeking 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").
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, the
Plaintiff contends.
PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS bind 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.
Mr. Moon is a resident and citizen of South Carolina. He regularly
used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to
extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include 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; and UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: Bialas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bialas, 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.; BUCK
EYE 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; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:24-cv-04441-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14,
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 to extinguish fires during his career and was
diagnosed with thyroid disease 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Rapp Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Rapp, 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.; BUCK
EYE 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; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:24-cv-04470-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 14,
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 to extinguish fires during his career in the
Navy and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and/or other medical
related conditions 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Rose Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
William B. Rose, JR. and Christine Rose, his wife, 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:24-cv-04492-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 15,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
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 to extinguish fires during his working career
and was diagnosed with kidney cancer and/or other medical related
conditions 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Sellers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Stephen Sellers, 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.; BASF CORPORATION BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.;
DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS
INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N. CURTIS
& SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; 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.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES,
INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Case No. 2:24-cv-04517-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 16, 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 and 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 it where
it remains and persists over extended 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 remains
in the human body while contemporaneously 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 Defendants' 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 to extinguish fires during his military career
and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease and Hypothyroidism as a
result of exposure to 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:
David L. Selby, II, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905
Birmingham, AL 35244
Phone: 205.988.9253
Fax: 205.788.4896
Email: dselby@baileyglasser.com
3M COMPANY: Weigel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Weigel and Donna Weigel, his wife, 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:24-cv-04494-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 2024), is brought for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
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 to extinguish fires during his working career
and was diagnosed with thyroid disease and/or other medical related
conditions 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
417 THROOP BAR: Shlush-Reyna Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
URIEL SHLUSH-REYNA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. 417 THROOP BAR, LLC d/b/a THE COYOTE CLUB, 36 WYCKOFF
LLC, d/b/a CAROUSEL, MYRTLE VILLAGE LLC, d/b/a BIRDY'S, ANDRES
SIMMONS, and HOLLY (MACGIBBON) SIMMONS, Case No. 1:24-cv-06849
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024) seeks to recover minimum wage
compensation, and statutory penalties for Plaintiff and similarly
situated service workers who work or have worked at any of
Defendants' Brooklyn Night Clubs -- The Coyote Club, Carousel and
Birdy's -- within six years of the filing of this action.
Since 2019, the Plaintiff has regularly worked 2 shifts, Saturdays
and Sundays, at the Coyote Club. The Plaintiff's Saturday shifts
last from 7:00 p.m. to at least 2:00 a.m. The Plaintiff's Sunday
shifts last from 1:00 p.m. to at least 9:00 p.m. 40. The Plaintiff
was paid $50 per shift, which is less than the federal and state
minimum wages, the suit contends.
Starting in 2023, the Plaintiff began to work 2 shifts per week at
Carousel. The Plaintiff was paid $10 per hour in 2023 and $10.65
per hour in 2024 for their work at Carousel. This is amount was
less than the relevant New York Minimum wage, alleges the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated current and former Service Workers who elect to
opt-in to this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to
remedy Defendants' violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of
the FLSA by that have deprived Plaintiff, and other similarly
situated employees, of their lawfully earned wages.
The Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of himself, and all
similarly situated current and former Service Workers pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to remedy violations of the New
York Labor Law, Article 6, sections 190 et seq., Article 19,
sections 650 et seq., and the supporting New York State Department
of Labor Regulations.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants since 2019.
417 Throop owns and operates The Coyote Club located in Brooklyn,
NY.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
A SHOC BEVERAGE: Montera Sues Over Energy Beverages' False Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARYBETH MONTERA and MARY JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. A SHOC BEVERAGE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07281 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for breach of express
warranty, violation of New York's Consumer Protection from
Deceptive Acts and Practices Law, and restitution based on
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Accelerator
Active Energy beverages. The beverages claim to provide sustained
energy, accelerate the metabolism, and enhance focus. It is
marketed to active consumers seeking healthful, clean label
products to enhance their wellbeing. Among its clean label claims,
the side panel of the beverage assures consumers that the product
contains 0 Carbs, 0 Sugar, 0 Artificial Flavors and 0
Preservatives. However, contrary to the representation on the
product's label, guaranteeing that it contains "0 Preservatives,"
the ingredient deck reveals the inclusion of citric acid as the
second most prominent ingredient, which is and acts as a chemical
preservative in the product. Had the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased
the product or paid less for it, says the suit.
A Shoc Beverage, LLC is a beverage manufacturer headquartered in
Newport Beach, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael D. Braun, Esq.
KUZYK LAW, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (213) 401-4100
Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com
- and -
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Avenue
Providence, RI 02908
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
Email: pnwlaw@aol.com
ACCESS SPORTS: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Giguere Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES GIGUERE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACCESS SPORTS MEDICINE AND ORTHOPAEDICS,
PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00300 (D.N.H., September 23,
2024) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach
of Plaintiff's sensitive information in the possession and custody
and/or control of Defendant.
The data breach occurred on May 10, 2024 and resulted in
unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and
former patients' highly personal information. In or around
September 2024--four months after the data breach first
occurred--Defendant finally began notifying Class members about the
data breach. However, the Defendant's breach notice obfuscated the
nature of the breach and the threat it posted--refusing to tell its
patients how many people were impacted, how the breach happened,
and why it took Defendant until late August 2024 to begin notifying
victims that hackers had gained access to highly private sensitive
information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for
Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and invasion of
privacy.
Based in Exeter, NH, Access Sports Medicine and Orthopaedics
provides orthopedics and services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam H. Weintraub, Esq.
WEINTRAUB LAW, LLC
170 Commerce Way, Suite 200
Portsmouth, NH 03801
Telephone: (603) 212-1785
E-mail: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
ALCHEMEE LLC: O'Dea Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lucinda O'Dea, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ALCHEMEE, LLC, Taro
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02755 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Aug. 14, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07049-ODW-E to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Alchemee -- https://www.alchemee.com/ -- offers pro-active and
restorative elements services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: (313) 303-3472
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive Penthouse Suite
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: astraus@milberg.com
- and -
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 West Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 810-7047
Email: tkashima@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
Russell Busch, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
rbusch@milberg.com
- and -
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (202) 640-1167
Email: hbryson@milberg.com
- and -
Luis Angel Cardona, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
1311 Ponce De Leon Avenue
San Juan, PR 00985
Phone: (516) 862-0194
Email: lcardona@milberg.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR AND FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James Robert Shultz, Esq.
Connor Joseph Doughty, Esq.
David S. Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS, LLLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6950
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 624-9401
Email: james.shultz@tuckerellis.com
connor.doughty@tuckerellis.com
dkurtzer@wc.com
- and -
Kathleen Anne Stricklin, Esq.
WALSWORTH, LLP
19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1150
Irvine, CA 92612-8433
Phone: (714) 634-2522
Fax: (714) 634-0686
Email: kstricklin@wfbm.com
- and -
Sherry Ann Knutson, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6950
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 624-6300
Email: sherry.knutson@tuckerellis.com
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Bland Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Bland, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION D/B/A ALLSTATE HEALTH SOLUTIONS AND KHALID
MCCOMBS, Case No. 1:24-cv-07077 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2024), is
brought to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA") alleging that the
Defendant, by and through its agent Khalid McCombs, violated the
TCPA by sending multiple telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and other
putative class members listed on the National Do Not Call Registry
without their written consent as well as sending such calls to
people who had previously asked to no longer receive them.
The TCPA prohibits sending multiple telemarketing calls to a
residential telephone number that has previously been registered on
the National Do Not Call Registry. A listing on the National Do Not
Call Registry "must be honored indefinitely, or until the
registration is cancelled by the consumer or the telephone number
is removed by the database administrator." The TCPA and
implementing regulations prohibit the initiation of telephone
solicitations to residential telephone subscribers to the Registry
and provide a private right of action against any entity that sends
those solicitations, or "on whose behalf" such solicitations are
sent.
The Plaintiff never consented to receive calls from Defendants. In
fact, the Plaintiff explicitly revoked any purported consent to
receive calls from the Defendants. The calls and text messages were
all placed to sell Defendant Allstate's goods and services.
Plaintiff's privacy has been violated by the above-described
telemarketing calls. The Plaintiff never provided her consent or
requested the calls. The aforementioned calls to the Plaintiff were
unwanted. The calls were non-consensual encounters. The Defendants
had the ability to immediately honor Plaintiff's do not call
requests, but they did not.
The Plaintiff and all members of the Classes, have been harmed by
the acts of Defendants because their privacy has been violated and
they were annoyed and harassed. In addition, the calls occupied
their telephone lines, rendering them unavailable for legitimate
communication, including while driving, working, and performing
other critical tasks, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Class Certification Filing Due July 28, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peter Shumway, et al, v.
Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Case No.
2:23-cv-00699-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas Rayes entered
a scheduling order as follows:
-- The Parties have exchanged Initial Disclosure Statements
pursuant
to Rule 26.
-- The deadline for joining parties and amending pleadings shall
be
filed by 120 days after the Court's ruling on any class
certification motion.
-- The deadline for completing fact discovery limited to issues of
class certification, including all disclosure required under
Rule
26(a)(3), shall be March 25, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff(s) shall provide full and complete expert
disclosures as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure no later than April 25, 2025.
-- The Defendant(s) shall provide full and complete expert
disclosures as required by Rule26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure no later than May 26, 2025.
-- Expert depositions shall be completed no later than June 26,
2025.
-- Any class certification motion shall be filed no later than
July
28, 2025.
-- The response to any class certification motion shall be filed
no
later than Aug. 28, 2025.
-- The reply in support of any class certification motion shall be
filed no later than Sept. 26, 2025.
Allstate Vehicle provides property and casualty insurance
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9tJMyE at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Dismiss with Prejudice Certain Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GATEGUARD, INC., v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES,
LLC, AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., RING LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09321-JGK-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order dismissing with prejudice Counts VI, VII, and XI of
the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, to deny class
certification, and to strike Plaintiff's class allegations.
Pursuant to this Court's scheduling order, Plaintiff's opposition
is due on Oct. 31, 2024, and Defendants' reply is due on Nov. 14,
2024.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NLMyHw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Anne Champion, Esq.
Christopher D. Belelieu, Esq.
David P. Salant, Esq.
Marc Aaron Takagaki, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Telephone: (212) 351-4000
E-mail: AChampion@gibsondunn.com
CBelelieu@gibsondunn.com
DSalant@gibsondunn.com
MTakagaki@gibsondunn.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Wins Summary Judgment for 1st, 3rd Causes of Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA CARLISLE, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-06856-RFL (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting Defendants'
motion for summary judgment as to the first and third causes of
action.
-- The Court remands the second cause of action to the Superior
Court
of California for the County of Alameda.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as
moot.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff a pro rata share does not constitute an unlawful
forfeiture under the meaning of section 227.3.
The Plaintiff was not deprived of any vacation time to which she
was entitled. Accordingly, summary judgment on this claim is
granted in favor of Defendants.
In sum, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s breach of
contract claim. Although this claim appears futile because
Plaintiff cannot show she saw the sign-on bonus advertisement at
issue, it must be remanded to state court.
The Plaintiff filed this action, on behalf of herself and similarly
situated individuals, against the Defendants, alleging that
(1) Defendants' Paid Personal Time ("PPT") policy violates
California Labor Code section 227.3,
(2) Defendants' failure to pay sign-on bonuses as advertised in
job postings amounts to breach of contract, and (3)
Defendants' unfair practices violates the California
Business
and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1aUAPV at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Pizza Suit Over Class Amex-Branded Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------
PIZZA HAZEL, INC., NUNAN FLORIST AND GREENHOUSES, INC., and SKIN
REJUVENATION CENTER AND SPA, INC., on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY and AMERICAN
EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES CO. INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-12505
(D. Mass., Sept. 30, 2024) seeks damages and injunctive relief
against the Defendants on behalf of the eight million merchants in
the United States who accept Amex-branded cards under American
Express's OptBlue (TM) program subject to the current version of
the American Express Merchant Operating Guide.
According to the complaint, Amex's non-discrimination provisions
and the Merchant Operating Guide and merchant contracts that
incorporate the NDPs comprise unlawful contracts in restraint of
trade, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. section 1 (the "NDP Restraints"). Amex's class-banning
arbitration provisions also comprise an unlawful contract in
restraint of trade, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1 (the "Arbitration Restraints").
The Amex possesses market power such that the NDP Restraints and
the Arbitration Restraints have the potential for genuine adverse
effects on interbrand competition. The NDP Restraints and the
Arbitration Restraints have caused genuine adverse effects on
interbrand competition, including (i) by increasing the two-sided
price of transactions, and (ii) imposing substantial barriers to
entry and expansion in the relevant market(s). The Plaintiffs and
the Class have suffered injury to their business as a result of
American Express's violation of the Sherman Act. As a direct and
foreseeable result of Defendants' willful and ongoing imposition
and enforcement of Amex's non-discrimination provisions, the
Injunctive Class has suffered irreparable injury for which there is
no adequate remedy at law, including injuries that are likely to
accumulate and continue if not enjoined, says the suit.
Pizza Hazel owns and operates Pizza Hazel, a restaurant in Lowell.
American Express is an American bank holding company and
multinational financial services corporation that specializes in
payment cards.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
Dan K. Bryson, Esq.
Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY
Telephone: (516) 741-5600
E-mail: Rkassan@milberg.com
sharris@milberg.com
pwedgworth@milberg.com
- and -
Robert W. Cohen, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. COHEN, PC
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1901
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 282-7586
Facsimile: (310) 282-7589
E-mail: rwc@robertwcohenlaw.com
APL LOGISTICS: Ponce Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ponce, Jr. and Maribel Herrera, on behalf of the general
public as private attorney general v. APL LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE,
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. a Florida Corporation; BARONHR GROUP, LLC
a Delaware Limited Liability Company; CHARTWELL STAFFING SERVICES
INC, a New York Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV20632 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 15, 2024), is
brought under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") as
a result of the Defendants failure to pay compensations.
In this case, Defendants violated various provisions of the
California Labor Code. The Defendants implemented policies and
practices which led to unpaid wag resulting from Defendant's:
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide
accurate itemized wag statements, failure to record and pay sick
pay accurately, failure to pay vested vacation pay failure to
comply with Labor Code, failure to provide suitable seating and
failure to timely pay wages upon separation and during employment.
As a result Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor Code on behalf of
the general public as private attorn general and all Other
aggrieved employees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants.
APL LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. is a Florida
Corporation, that operates as a global supply chain specialist for
automotive, consumer, industrial, and retail companies. Defendant
operates nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
Lauren Falk, Esq.
Ava Issary, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com
APPLE CORE: Hermosillo Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cecilia Hermosillo, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. APPLE CORE ENTERPRISES, INC..; and
DOES 1 through 55, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2404696 was removed from
the Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Sept. 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-02089.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action:
Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked at Minimum Wage; Failure
to Pay Overtime Wages for Daily Overtime Worked; Failure to
Authorize or Permit Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize or Permit
Rest Periods; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Employment-Related
Losses/Expenditures; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage
Statements; Failure to Timely Pay all Wages at Time of Discharge;
and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Peter J. Woo, Esq.
Leo P. Norton, Esq.
Joseph F. Desiderio, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 885-1360
Facsimile: (949) 885-1380
Email: Peter.Woo@jacksonlewis.com
Leo.Norton@jacksonlewis.com
Joseph.Desiderio@jacksonlewis.com
APPLE INC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL ORSHAN, et al., v.
APPLE INC., Case No. 5:14-cv-05659-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Edward Davila entered an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part Apple's motion to exclude;
and
-- granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for
class
certification.
The Court certifies the California Preinstall Subclass and declines
to certify the nationwide Upgrade and Preinstall Subclasses.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the two nationwide classes
as liability-only classes under Rule 23(c)(4) if the Court declines
to certify them under Rule 23(b)(3), but the Court declines that
request as well because any such nationwide liability-only classes
would still face intractable individualized choice-of-law issues.
Within 21 days of this Order, the parties shall submit a stipulated
schedule for this case up to and including the trial setting
conference. Though the parties need not agree on dates for the
pretrial conference or trial, they should indicate the time that
they expect the case to be ready for trial.
If the parties are unable to reach agreement, instead of a
stipulation, they shall file a joint status report containing their
competing scheduling proposals.
Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LtJv2X at no extra
charge.[CC]
ARAMARK SERVICES: Nyannor Civil Rights Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as OKYEREMAH NYANNOR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ARAMARK SERVICES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; ARAMARK
BUSINESS FACILITIES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company;
ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; ARAMARK
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company;
ARAMARK EDUCATIONAL GROUP, INC., a foreign profit corporation;
ARAMARK EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company; ARAMARK ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company; ARAMARK FHC, LLC; a foreign limited liability company;
ARAMARK HEALTHCARE SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company; ARAMARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a foreign limited partnership; ARAMARK RAIL SERVICES, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company; ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES,
LLC, a foreign limited liability company; ARAMARK SPORTS AND
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, a foreign limited liability company;
ARAMARK SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company; ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 24-2-19382-1 SEA (Filed Aug. 26,
2024), was removed from the King County Superior Court to the
United States District Court for the Western District Of Washington
on Sept. 27, 2024.
The Western Washington District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-01543 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of the Plaintiff and the Class members'
civil rights.
The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of the following putative
class:
"All individuals who, from Jan. 1, 2023 through the date
notice is provided to the Class, applied for a job opening in
the State of Washington with the Defendants where the job
posting did not disclose a wage scale or salary range."
Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and the Defendants'
officers, directors, and independent contractors, and any judge
to whom this case is assigned, as well as his or her staff and
immediate family.
Plaintiff Nyannor resides in King County, Washington and applied to
work for Defendants for a position located in the State of
Washington.
Aramark provides food service, facilities and uniform services to
hospitals, universities, school districts, stadiums and other
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 442-9106
Facsimile: (206) 441-9711
E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
ASCEND FINANCE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Law Offices of William
M. Gillen, P.C., v. Ascend Finance Corp., Case No.
1:23-cv-00456-JL-AJ (D.N.H.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order:
-- granting motion to extend the deadline to file an opposition
to Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
-- extending the time for filing an opposition to class
certification
to Oct. 14, 2024; and
-- granting such other and further relief as justice requires.
The Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification on Aug. 2,
2024.
The Defendant's deadline to file an opposition to the motion for
class certification is Oct. 4, 2024.
Mr. William Gillen's deposition occurred on Sept. 23, 2024.
Given the timing of Mr. Gillen's deposition, Defendant requests an
additional 10 days to file its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for
class certification, so, the transcript of the deposition can be
used to support the opposition.
The Plaintiff's counsel was contacted and assents to the relief
requested. Due to the relief requested, no separate memorandum of
law is necessary.
Ascend specializes in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy,
Debt Settlement and Debt Payoff Planner.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rypddW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
James P. Harris, Esq.
John-Mark Turner, Esq.
SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS & GREEN PA
1000 Elm Street
Manchester, NH 03105-3701
Telephone: (603) 627-8152
E-mail: jharris@sheehan.com
jturner@sheehan.com
ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES: Oracle America Files Suit in Del. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Industries
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Oracle America, Inc., Oracle
Corporation, and all others similarly situated v. Associated
Industries Inc., Canopius Managing Agents Limit, Certain Lloyd's
Underwriters, Chubb Underwriting Agencies, Evanston Insurance
Company, Lloyd's Insurance Company S.A., Scor Europe SE, Scor UK
Company Limited, Scottsdale Insurance Company, Case No. N24C-08-292
MAA CCLD (Del. Super. Ct., New Castle Cty., Aug. 20, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Complex Commercial Litigation
Division."
Associated Industries Inc. -- https://associatedindustriesinc.com/
-- are a raw materials distributor that specializes in advanced
materials such as carbon fiber, prepregs, composites, adhesives,
sealants and much more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer C. Wasson, Esq.
Carla Jones, Esq.
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
1313 N Market St., 6th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
P.O. Box 951
Phone: (302) 984-6000
Fax: (302) 658-1192
Email: jwasson@potteranderson.com
cjones@potteranderson.com
ASTER CONSTRUCTION: Carpenters-Contractors Sues Over Wages Owed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carpenters-Contractors Cooperation Committee, Inc., a California
Nonprofit Corporation, on its own behalf and on behalf of wage
claimants v. ASTER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, a California Corporation,
MORAN DRYWALL INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-100, Case
No. 24LBCV01759 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 20, 2024),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California
Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage seeking wages
owed.
This is action brought against the Defendants on the basis that
Aster's subcontractor, Moran, failed to pay wages owed to carpenter
laborers on the construction project called SoLa 4th Gaffey AH at
685 West 4th Street, San Pedro, California 90731 ("SoLa" or
"Project".)
The Defendants owe unpaid wages including overtime wages to the
following individuals: Alcides Adonay Cerna Gonzalez, Dolman
Manrique Escobar Lorenzo, Dora Maribel Henriquez De Selva, Douglas
Cerna Quintanilla, Edwin Elcides Cerna Quintanilla, Jorge Adan
Henriquez Hernandez, Jose Alberto Carranza Alvarez, Jose Santos
Ramirez, and similarly situated individuals ("Wage Claimants").
The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that,
at all times mentioned herein, Wage Claimants and all other
similarly situated individuals were formerly employed by
Subcontractor at Project. During that statutory period, Defendants
failed to compensate Wage Claimants for all hours worked and failed
to pay them proper regular and overtime wages. As a result of these
violations, Wage Claimants were injured in the form of lost
compensation over the statutory period, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Carpenters-Contractors Cooperation Committee, Inc. is
a labor-management cooperation committee formed pursuant to the
Federal Labor Management Cooperation of 1978 ("LMCC").
Aster Construction Services is a California corporation doing
business in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Desmond C. Lee, Esq.
Samantha B. Pastor, Esq.
SHANLEY APC
533 South Fremont Avenue, 9th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 488-4100
Fax: (213) 488-4180
Email: dlee@deconsel.com
spastor@shanleyapc.com
AT&T INC: Ghanaat Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
---------------------------------------------------------
Star Ghanaat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AT&T, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-05065-TSH (N.D. Cal., Aug.
12, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard the sensitive personal information of
herself and all those similarly situated, and in compensation for
that failure, she seeks monetary damages, restitution, and/or
injunctive relief.
The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant on behalf of the
victims of a targeted cyberattack on AT&T that was announced on
July 12, 2024 ("the Data Breach"). The following allegations are
made upon information and belief derived from, among other things,
investigation of counsel, public sources, and the facts and
circumstances as currently known. Because only AT&T (as well as the
cybercriminals who perpetrated the Data Breach) have knowledge of
what information was compromised, Plaintiff reserves the right to
supplement these allegations with additional facts and Injuries as
they are discovered.
As a wireless carrier, Defendant collected a variety of information
about Plaintiff and Class Members, including some personally
identifiable information ("PII"), such as names, phone
numbers, cell site identification numbers, and other sensitive
information, when Plaintiff and Class Members communicated with
AT&T Mobile customers.
In the course of collecting personally identifying information on
from consumers, including Plaintiff, Defendant had an obligation to
provide confidentiality and adequate security for the data it
collected Defendant also represented and promised its customers
that it provides such confidentiality and security through its
applicable privacy policy and through other disclosures in
compliance with statutory privacy requirements, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a wireless carrier.
AT&T, Inc. is one of the largest wireless carriers in the
country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christoper L. Springer, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
Email: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com
ATS PRODUCTS: Zelaya-Gomez Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jose L. Zelaya-Gomez, an individual, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. ATS PRODUCTS, INC.
a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. C24-02251 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for Contra Costa County, to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on Sept. 30, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-06871.
On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed the "Class Action Complaint
for: Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay All Overtime
Wages; Failure to Provide Rest Periods and Pay Missed Rest Period
Premiums; Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Missed Meal
Period Premiums; Failure to Maintain Accurate Employment Records;
Failure to Pay Wages Timely during Employment; Failure to Pay All
Wages Earned and Unpaid at Separation; Failure to Furnish Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; and Violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Kyle D. Smith, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
The Defendants are represented by:
Margaret J. Grover, Esq.
GROVER WORKPLACE SOLUTIONS, P.C.
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 654-1678
Email: mgrover@groverworkplacesolutions.com
AVIS BUDGET: Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN VALLI, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AVIS
BUDGET RENTAL CAR GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06072-JBC
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge James Clark, III denies Defendants' motion
to compel arbitration, and denies Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment.
Thus, the Court finds Defendants have offered sufficient evidence
to create a genuine dispute as to whether an affirmative
misrepresentation and the capacity to mislead exists based the use
of the term “violation” in either agreement.
Furthermore, the dispute as to which agreement applies is material
to the issue of affirmative misrepresentation.
In theory, Valli was an Avis Preferred Member and would be subject
to the Preferred Members Terms and Conditions.
Additionally, she executed a Rental Agreement with Defendants to
which she is also subject. The conflict between the two agreements
alone is enough to raise a dispute of a material fact. For these
reasons, summary judgment is denied, and these issues are to be
decided by a jury.
On Sept. 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against the Defendants regarding their alleged "misrepresentations
and omissions concerning charging [car rental customers] for
alleged traffic infractions and an administrative fee without
consent, without disclosure, and without the opportunity to contest
the allegation."
On July 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.
The Court determined the Class Period to be September 30, 2008
through the Present and defined the Preferred Members Subclass as:
"All Avis Preferred and Budget Fastbreak members with a United
States address who rented an Avis or Budget brand vehicle
during
the Class Period and whose rented vehicle was the subject of an
alleged parking, traffic, toll or other violation, where: (1)
the
ticket issuing authority sent notice of the ticket directly to
ABG; (2) ABG or its agent paid the fine and/or court costs
associated with the alleged violation; and (3) ABG charged the
vehicle renter for such fine, penalty and court costs, and/or
an
associated administrative fee."
The Plaintiff Valli, a Florida resident and Avis Preferred member,
rented an Avis brand car from Defendants' Maryland facility at
Baltimore-Washington International Airport on June 11, 2014, and
was ticketed by an automatic traffic enforcement device which
captured the rental vehicle going 52 mph in a 35-mph zone in
Washington, DC on that same day.
Avis Budget operates and franchises vehicle rental services.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ijGkzy at no extra
charge.[CC]
B2TM HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Suarez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN SUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. B2TM Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-07372 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 30, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.baboontothemoon.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff has made an attempt to visit and use
Baboontothemoon.com on Aug. 26, 2024. While navigating the website,
he encountered numerous accessibility issues, such as many
ambiguously labeled buttons, pop-ups, 'Skip to content' link not
being the first focusable element on the web pages. He wanted to
buy a fanny pack, but was unable to do so independently because of
the many access barriers on Defendant's website, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
B2TM Holdings' policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Mr. Suarez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
B2TM Holdings offers a variety of backpacks, crossbody bags, totes,
laptop cases, wallets, and organizational accessories.[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
BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN SCHERTZER, MEAGAN
HICKS, and BRITTANY COVELL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., CARDTRONICS, INC.,
FCTI, INC., CASH DEPOT, LTD., N.A., and DOES 1–50, inclusive,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00264-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter stipulated briefing schedule on Plaintiff Covell's
motion for class
Certification as follows:
Nov. 8, 2024: Plaintiff's motion for class certification
Jan. 10, 2024: Defendant opposition to the motion for class
certification
Jan. 24, 2024: Defendant's reply in support of the motion
Feb. 7, 2024: Hearing on the motion for class certification
The Plaintiff filed her complaint in this action on Feb. 5, 2019.
The Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint on March 1, 2019.
On April 4, 2022, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
On Sept. 10, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate vacating
the Court's denial of class certification.
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x3dn7b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Jae K. Kim, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1900
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
ekim@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amanda L. Groves, Esq.
Shawn R. Obi, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
Telephone: (213) 615-1700
Facsimile: (213) 615-175
E-mail: agroves@winston.com
sobi@winston.com
BIOVIE INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit Over Medications
---------------------------------------------------------------
BioVie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2024, filed on September 30, 2024, that it is facing a
consolidated action captioned "In re BioVie Inc. Securities
Litigation."
On February 22, 2024, a purported shareholder class action
complaint, captioned "Way v. BioVie Inc. et al.," No.
2:24-cv-00361, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, naming BioVie Inc. and certain of its officers
and/or directors as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that the company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to
the company's business, operations, compliance, and prospects,
including information related to the study and trial of its
experimental oral therapy for Parkinson's disease NE3107, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On April 15, 2024, the court consolidated this with another action
under the caption "In re BioVie Inc. Securities Litigation," No.
3:24-cv-00035, appointed the lead plaintiff, and approved selection
of the lead counsel. On June 21, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, alleging that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to
the company's business, operations, compliance, and prospects,
including information related to the NM101 Phase 3 study and trial
of bezisterim (NE3107) in mild to moderate probable Alzheimer's
Disease, in violation of the Exchange Act. The class action is on
behalf of purchasers of the company's securities during the period
from December 7, 2022 through November 28, 2023 and seeks
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an
award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 21, 2024.
BioVie Pharma is a purpose-based company that develops new
solutions for people with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and ascites.
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Faces Labor Suit in Ontario Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2022, that a trial date for
an employment class action filed against the company has not yet
been set.
On March 17, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed
against the company in the Ontario Superior court of Justice
(Parker v. BlackBerry Limited). The Statement of Claim alleges that
actions the company took when certain of its employees decided to
accept offers of employment from Ford Motor Company of Canada
amounted to a wrongful termination of the employees' employment
with the company.
The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory,
contractual, or common law termination entitlements, (ii) punitive
or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20 million, or such
other amount as the court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post-
judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such
other relief as the court deems just. The court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class action on May 27, 2019.
The company commenced a motion for leave to appeal the
certification order on June 11, 2019. The court denied the motion
for leave to appeal on September 17, 2019. The company filed its
Statement of Defense on December 19, 2019. The parties participated
in a mediation on November 9, 2022, which did not result in an
agreement. The court has set a trial date of June 2, 2025, and
scheduled a pre-trial conference on December 4, 2024. Discovery is
proceeding.
BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments based in Canada.
BLUEBIRD BIO: Faces Gill Securities Suit Over IPO, Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bluebird Bio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 27, 2024, that on March 28, 2024, a class
action lawsuit captioned "Garry Gill v. bluebird bio, Inc. et al.,"
Case No. 1:24-cv-10803-PBS, was filed against the company in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. An
amended complaint was filed on August 15, 2024 that purports to
assert claims against the company and certain of its current and
former officers pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a putative class of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's shares between
April 24, 2023 and December 8, 2023.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by purported
misstatements and omissions regarding (i) whether the company could
obtain FDA approval for the lovo-cel BLA without a black box
warning for hematologic malignancies; and (ii) whether the Company
would be granted a priority review voucher by the FDA in connection
with the BLA, which it could sell in order to strengthen its
financial position. The amended complaint claims these alleged
statements and omissions operated to artificially inflate the price
paid for our common stock during the class period.
On September 2, 2024, the court entered the parties' stipulated
schedule for briefing a motion to dismiss the amended complaint:
the opening brief in support of a motion to dismiss is due October
11, 2024; the opposition brief is due December 5, 2024; and a reply
brief in further support of a motion to dismiss is due December 20,
2024.
Bluebird Bio is a biotechnology company developing and
commercializing potentially curative gene therapies for severe
genetic diseases based on its proprietary lentiviral vector gene
addition platform.
BOARD OF EDUCATION: Mulgrew Files Petition in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mulgrew, as President of the United Federation of Teachers,
Local 2; Christina Mcgrath; Frank Panebianco; Ben Morgenroth;
Daniel Alicea, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
contributors to the Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New
York (collectively, "Petitioners") v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK and DAVID C. BANKS, as
Chancellor of the City School District of the City of New York,
Respondents, Case No. 157503/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.,
Aug. 15, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for a Verified
Article 78 Petition.
The Petitioners commence this Article 78 proceeding to vacate and
annul the 2024 election of teacher-member Christina McGrath, and
her alternate, Frank Panebianco, to the board of the Teachers'
Retirement System of the City of New York ("TRS"), as organized and
carried out by the Respondents the Board of Education of the City
of New York and Chancellor David C. Banks, because of their failure
to adequately adhere to the statutory requirements of New York City
Administrative Code ("Administrative Code") Section 13-507 and
direct that DOE conduct a compliant election. The DOE has not
complied with this statute either in substance or in procedure, and
has failed to uphold the law's purpose: to provide contributors to
TRS with adequate notice, information and election procedures
sufficient to ensure a fair and safe election that inspires
contributors' trust in TRS. Instead, the DOE conducted a
perfunctory and inadequate election with procedures it made up that
prevented full participation, dampened voter engagement, and
insufficiently safeguarded against mis-cast ballots. As such, the
election process was fatally flawed and contrary to law, says the
complaint.
Petitioner Michael Mulgrew is a resident of the State and City of
New York, and
is the President of the United Federation of Teachers.
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, denominated by Respondents the Panel for Educational Policy,
is located at 52 Chambers Street, New York, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dina Kolker, Esq.
STEPTOE LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 508-8854
- and -
Beth Norton, Esq.
United Federation of Teachers
52 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
BRADCON LLC: Enriquez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Adrian Perez Enriquez, individually, and on
behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. BRADCON, LLC DBA BRADLEY
CONCRETE, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV17566 was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Sept. 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08419.
The Plaintiff seeks PAGA penalties for Failure to Provide Required
Meal Periods (or Pay Premiums in Lieu Thereof); Failure to Provide
Required Rest Periods (or Pay Premiums in Lieu Thereof); Failure to
Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Timely
Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Due to
Discharged and Quitting Employees; Failure to Furnish Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Maintain Required Records; and
Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred
in Discharge of Duties.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Laura E. Hayward, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415.433.1940
Fax: 415.399.8490
Email: lhayward@littler.com
- and -
Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq.
Rachel E. Simons, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.830.7200
Fax: 916.561.0828
Email: njenkins@littler.com
resimons@littler.com
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Certain Exhibits Stricken from Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Bradley University,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01264 (C.D. Ill., Filed July 14, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Colleen Lawless entered an order granting the Defendant's
motion to strike Exhibits 11 and 17-21 from Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
Before the Court is Defendant's motion to strike exhibits from
plaintiff's motion for class certification, to which Plaintiff has
responded.
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification includes six exhibits
and two URLs which were not included in his initial Motion for
Class Certification.
The Seventh Circuit directed this Court to reassess class
certification on "the existing record" and to conduct further
proceedings "consistent with this opinion." Under the mandate rule,
the Court "is required to comply with the express or implied
rulings of the appellate court."
The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.
Bradley University is a private university in Peoria, Illinois,
United States. Founded in 1897, Bradley University enrolls 5,400
students who are pursuing degrees in more than 100 undergraduate
programs and more than 30 graduate programs in five colleges.[CC]
CAPSTONE GREEN ENERGY: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Green Energy Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 27, 2024, that on August 19, 2024,
a class action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382 was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles under Case No. 24STCV21118, on behalf of
plaintiffs and all other current and former non-exempt California
employees employed by or formerly employed by defendants claiming
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
waiting time penalties, wage statement violations, failure to
timely pay wages, failure to indemnify, violation of Labor Code
227.3, and unfair competition.
Capstone Green Energy Holdings, Inc. develops, manufactures,
markets, sells and service microturbine-based technology solutions
based in California.
CARCO GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Taylor Extended to Nov. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR v. CARCO GROUP,
INC. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-07547-CPO-MJS (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Matthew Skahill entered an order extending filing for class
certification bid to Nov. 7, 2024.
CARCO is a provider of tech-enabled and compliance-driven human
capital management and risk management solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LGhWgU at no extra
charge.[CC]
CENTRAL VETERINARY: Chader Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amel Chader, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
CENTRAL VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, P.C. d/b/a CENTRAL VETERINARY
ASSOCIATES; CENTRAL VETERINARY ASSOCIATE II P.C. d/b/a CENTRAL
VETERINARY ASSOCIATES; NVA CENTRAL VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, LLC d/b/a
CENTRAL VETERINARY ASSOCIATES; NATIONAL VETERINARY ASSOCIATES INC.;
CATHERINE TWAROWSKI; CAITLAN MONTE; NICOLE SAVOCCHI; and PAULA DE
CHIRICO, Case No. 2:24-cv-05784-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2024), is
brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid, overtime
compensation, spread-of-hours pay, and statutory penalties in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York
Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
regulations (collectively "NYLL").
Although Ms. Chader worked about 62 hours per week, CVA did not pay
her a premium rate of 1.5 times her regular hourly rate for her
overtime hours (i.e., hours worked after having already worked 40
hours per week), as CVA was required to do under the "FLSA", the
"NYLL" and supporting regulations.
The Defendants have never paid Plaintiff, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and Class Members an overtime rate of 1.5 times their
regular hourly rate for hours she worked after having already
worked 40 hours per week, as they were required to do under the
FLSA and the NYLL. the Defendants knowingly and willfully operated
their business with a policy of not paying an overtime at a rate of
1.5 times each employee's regular hourly rate to Plaintiff, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a veterinary
technician in September 2019.
Central Veterinarian Associates ("CVA") is a full service
veterinary clinic located in Valley Stream, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian L. Greben, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN
316 Great Neck Road
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 304-5357
CITIBANK N.A.: Letidas Logistics Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Letidas Logistics, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITIBANK, N.A., Case No.
CACE 24-009428 was removed from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
Aug. 12, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-61469-DSL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Citibank, N. A. -- http://www.citi.com/-- is the primary U.S.
banking subsidiary of financial services multinational
Citigroup.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Alexander Shaw
Lauren Nicole Palen
Zachary Dean Ludens
ZEBERSKY PAYNE
110 SE 6th St, Suite 2900
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 989-6333
Fax: (954) 989-7781
Email: jshaw@zpllp.com
lpalen@zpllp.com
zludens@zpllp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ana Maria Barton
Edward Maurice Mullins
Sujey Scarlett Herrera
REED SMITH LLP
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Ste 2600
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (786) 747-0200
Fax: (786) 747-0299
Email: abarton@reedsmith.com
emullins@reedsmith.com
sherrera@reedsmith.com
CITY OF HOPE: Manley Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxfield Manley, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, d/b/a
CITY OF HOPE, Case No. 24STCV20862 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Aug. 16, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure
to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members'
protected personal information stored within Defendant's
information networks and servers, including, without limitation,
"protected health information" ("PHI"), and "personally
identifiable information" ("PII"), as defined by the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA")
(collectively, PHI and PII are also referred to therein as "Private
Information").
In the course of providing services, Defendant acquired and
collected Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information.
Defendant knew, at all times material, that it was collecting, and
responsible for the security of, sensitive data, including
Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly confidential Private
Information.
As COH acknowledged on April 2, 2024, Private Information in its
possession was accessed by unauthorized third persons. This
unauthorized access was accomplished because Defendant failed to
maintain appropriate and necessary safeguards, independent review,
and oversight of the Private Information in its possession, and
which still remains vulnerable to additional hackers and theft.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it
caused and will continue to cause them and over 800,000 other
similarly situated persons by virtue of an unauthorized and
preventable cyberattack that Defendant discovered no later than
October 13, 2023, when it detected "suspicious activity on a subset
of its systems." With the investigative aid of a cybersecurity
firm, COH "determined that an unauthorized third party" accessed
its systems and "obtained" files between September 19, 2023 and
October 13, 2023 ("Data Breach").
COH has acknowledged that there are files containing "personal
information" that were accessed, including contact information
(e.g., email address, phone number), date of birth, social security
number, driver's license or other government identification,
financial details (e.g. bank account number and/or credit card
details), health insurance information, medical records and
information about medical history and/or associated conditions,
and/or unique identifiers to associate individuals with City of
Hope (e.g., medical record number).
Despite being aware of the Data Breach no later than October 13,
2023, and despite its acknowledgment that it knew that the PHI and
PII of its patients and Class Members was accessed in the Data
Breach, Defendant waited until April 2, 2024 to begin providing
notice to Plaintiff and the Class--a significant delay extending
more than 5 months, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began receiving cancer treatment at healthcare
facilities operated by the University of California, Los Angeles.
The Defendant provides medical care for and treatment of cancer
victims.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
Email: sbasser@barrack.com
sward@barrack.com
COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Todd Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDY TODD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. COLUMBUS REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 4:24-cv-00138-FL
(E.D.N.C., Sept. 30, 2024) is a class action for damages against
CRHS for its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and
safeguarding sensitive patient personal identifying information
and/or protected health information -- including first and last
names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health insurance
information, personal addresses, and sensitive patient medical
treatment information.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of similarly situated
patients whose sensitive Private Information was stolen by
cybercriminals in a cyber-attack on CRHS's systems that occurred
between May 19, 2023, and May 21, 2023, and which resulted in the
access and exfiltration of Private Information (the "Data Breach").
CRHS sent notice of the Data Breach to Plaintiff and members of the
putative Class.
The Plaintiff and Class members were notified of the Breach in
January 2024.
The exposure of a person's PII or PHI through a data breach ensures
that such person will be at a substantially increased and certainly
impending risk of identity theft crimes compared to the rest of the
population, potentially for the rest of their lives.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members are at
imminent and substantial risk of experiencing various types of
misuse of their Private Information in the coming years, including
but not limited to, unauthorized access to email accounts, tax
fraud, and identity theft -- including medical identity theft, says
the suit.
CRHS is a healthcare nonprofit based in Columbus County, North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel Ranchor Harris , III
RANCHOR HARRIS LAW, PLLC
1784 Heritage Center Drive Suite 204-E
Wake Forest, NC 27839
Telephone: 919-249-5006
E-mail: Ranchor@ranchorharris.Com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
412 H Street NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
COMERICA BANK: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 22
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA SPARKMAN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. COMERICA BANK, a
foreign corporation, and CONDUENT STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a
foreign corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-02028-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Donna Ryu entered an order resetting case scheduling
deadlines as follows:
Event Deadline
Notice to the Court regarding mediation Nov. 15, 2024
All non-expert discovery completed Dec. 6, 2024
All expert discovery completed Dec. 6, 2024
Class certification motion Nov. 22, 2024
Opposition to class certification motion Dec. 20, 2024
Reply to class certification motion Jan. 3, 2025
Hearing on class certification motion Jan. 23, 2025 at
1:00 p.m.
Last day for hearing dispositive motions Apr. 24, 2025 at
1:00 p.m. or at
Court's
convenience
Pretrial Conference June 18, 2025 at
2:00 p.m.
Jury Trial July 1, 2025 at
8:30 a.m.
Comerica is an American financial services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CdsIvr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
Jasmin Rezaie-Tirabadi, Esq.
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
jrezaie@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Sophia M. Rios, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 489-0300
E-mail: srios@bm.net
- and -
Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor,
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 500-6114
E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net
The Defendants are represented by:
Jenny N. Perkins, Esq.
Colin P. Kane, Esq.
Mitchell Turbenson, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
Telephone: (215) 665-8500
E-mail: perkinsj@ballardspahr.com
kanec@ballardspahr.com
turbensonm@ballardspahr.com
- and -
John C. Grugan, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
1650 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 252-9610
E-mail: john.grugan@hklaw.com
CRITERION COLLECTION: Discloses Subscribers' Info, McGuire Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MCGUIRE, MATTHEW WICKHAM, and AMITAI HELLER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE CRITERION
COLLECTION, LLC d/b/a THE CRITERION CHANNEL, Case No. 1:24-cv-07354
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024) alleges that the Defendant utilized a
tracking pixel created by Meta, which were used to intercept and
disclose the Website's subscribers' search terms, video watching
information, and identifiable information without seeking or
obtaining subscribers' consent in violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act and state and federal wiretap statutes.
According to the complaint, the Website does not inform subscribers
that their personal identifying information will be exposed,
available, and readily usable by any person of ordinary technical
skill who receives that data. At no point during or after the
subscription sign up process – or anywhere on the Website for
that matter – do the Defendant seeks or obtain consent for the
sharing of subscribers' PII, search terms, or the precise location
of each webpage visited by subscribers, which the Defendant
surreptitiously gathered through the use of the Pixel that it chose
to employ on the Website, the lawsuit adds.
Plaintiff McGuire became a subscriber to the Criterion Channel in
2018 by providing payment.
Criterion is a New York-based home-video distribution company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Gary S. Ishimoto, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, Floor 17
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
gishimoto@zlk.com
CSC SERVICEWORKS: Qamar Files Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CSC Serviceworks,
Inc. The case is styled as Tina A. Qamar, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CSC Serviceworks, Inc.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-05783-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
CSC ServiceWorks -- https://www.cscsw.com/ -- is the leading
provider of commercial laundry services and air vending solutions
throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared Ross Cooper, Esq.
ROBINSON YABLON COOPER & BONFANTE, LLP
232 Madison Avenue, Suite 909
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 725-8566
Fax: (212) 725-8567
Email: jcooper@ryinjury.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel Robertson
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 506-5000
Email: drobertson@shb.com
DANIELLE OUTLAW: Flacco Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Flacco and Winton Singletary, and others similarly
situated v. DANIELLE OUTLAW, CHARLES RAMSEY, RICHARD ROSS, JR.,
KEVIN BETHEL, MICHAEL ZACCAGNI, PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, AND ALBERT
D'ATTILIO, in their individual capacities, Case No.
2:24-cv-04374-MAK (E.D. Pa., Aug. 21, 2024), is brought to recover
overtime compensation as a result of the Defendants' violation of
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL") and
negligently violated their duty to implement and effectuate Civil
Service Regulation ("CSR") for the benefit of Philadelphia Police
Department Captains, Staff Inspectors, Inspectors, and Chief
Inspectors ("PPD ranking officers").
The Defendants' conduct deprived Plaintiffs and the Class members
of thousands of hours of required overtime compensation for
authorized emergency work they performed during the relevant
period.
CSR 31.06 ("Emergency overtime pay for ranking officers in the
police and fire departments") is one of these Retroactive
Regulations. CSR 31.06 provides that PPD ranking officers who are
"authorized to work by their respective Commissioners during a
period of emergency nature, in excess of the number of hours of
their regularly scheduled work day or, for all hours worked on a
non-scheduled work day shall, for all hours of such overtime work,
be paid at their then regular rate of pay."
To date, despite requests from many PPD ranking officers,
Defendants have failed and refused to implement CSR 31.06 with
respect to any PPD ranking officer, notify any PPD ranking officer
of their entitlement to be paid additional wages for authorized
emergency work, or ensure that PPD ranking officers' authorized
emergency work is properly tracked or paid, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendant.
The Defendant Outlaw served as PPD Commissioner from approximately
December 2019 to September 2023.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Cohen, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLC
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: 215-873-4836
Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com
- and -
James B. Zouras, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLC
222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-233-1550
Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Ronald L. Greenblatt, Esq.
Patricia V. Pierce, Esq.
Kasturi Sen, Esq.
Noah Cohen, Esq.
WEIR GREENBLATT PIERCE LLP
1339 Chestnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215-665-8181
Email: rgreenblatt@wgpllp.com
ppierce@wgpllp.com
ksen@wgpllp.com
ncohen@wgpllp.com
DELINEA INC: Seeks Summary Judgment v. Koeller
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD J. KOELLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DELINEA INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00394-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting summary judgment, or in
the alternative, denying class certification, pursuant to Rule
23(d)(1)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
As explained in the attached Memorandum of Law, the Defendant only
sells sophisticated, enterprise-scale cybersecurity products and
services to businesses. The Defendant called Plaintiff, a
cybersecurity engineer, at his work number, and because the TCPA
and Missouri state law do not apply to business numbers, the Court
should grant summary judgment on this point.
If the Court does not grant summary judgment, it should deny class
certification. The Defendant obtains the contact information for
the businesses it communicates with in a variety of ways, including
directly from employees who ask to be contacted because they are
responsible for cybersecurity solutions for their companies. This
is all critically important because:
(a) DNC claims do not apply to business numbers or if there is
an
existing relationship between the caller and the recipient;
and
(b) a class may only be certified if Plaintiff can establish
that
each of these issues can be resolved on a class-wide basis
with common proof. As such, this is not a case where
liability
to the proposed class can be established in one fell swoop.
Rather, thousands of mini trials would need to be conducted for
each putative class member in order to determine if there is even a
single person who is similarly situated to Plaintiff.
The Defendant is a cybersecurity company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y7BVI0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
Leo P. O'Toole, Esq.
WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP
1055 Howell Mill Rd. 8th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30318
Telephone: (404) 782-0695
E-mail: ryan@wtlaw.com
lotoole@wtlaw.com
DIRECTTOU LLC: To Sues Over Video Privacy Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Hoang To, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DIRECTTOU, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 24CV086809 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug.
12, 2024), is brought against Defendant seeking statutory damages,
civil penalties, restitution, disgorgement of profits, declaratory
relief, public injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney's fees
and costs pursuant to the Video Privacy Protection Act (the
"VPPA"), and Cal. Business & Professions Code 17200 ("UCL").
Despite its clear legal obligations under the federal and
California law, Defendant knowingly and intentionally discloses its
customers' personally identifiable information— including a
record of every DVD or Blu-ray video they purchased ("Personally
Identifiable Information" or a third party, Meta Platforms Inc.
(formerly known as Facebook) ("Meta" or "Facebook"), without its
customers' consent.
Federal law recognizes, through the Video Privacy Protection Act
("VPPA"), that our video-viewing habits are intimately private. The
law accordingly requires companies that sell, rent, or offer
subscriptions to prerecorded videos to maintain their customers'
privacy and prohibits, among other things, the knowing disclosure
of customers' video choices to any third party without the
customers' specific advance written consent.
The California Constitution similarly recognizes that all people
are by nature entitled to a right to privacy. The VPPA accordingly
prohibits video sellers or renters from disclosing "any personal
information or the contents of any record, including sales or
rental information, which is prepared or maintained by that person,
to any person, Other than the individual who is subject of the
record, without the written consent of that individual," says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased three movies from www.deepdiscount.com.
DeepDiscount develops, owns and operates as a website
www.deepdiscount.com that sells DVD and Blu-ray videos to customers
in the U.S. and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Adrian Barnes, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, PC
1201 Pacific Ave, 6th Floor
Tacoma, WA 98402
Phone: 310-601-6766
Fax: 310-295-2385
Email: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
abames@hammondlawpc.com
pblandler@hammondlawpc.com
achemiak@hammondlawpc.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Barnes Wins Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order that:
(1) The Defendant's consent motion for an extension of time to
oppose Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
granted;
(2) The Defendant shall file its opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification by Oct. 7, 2024; and
(3) The Plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of their
motion
for class certification by Nov. 1, 2024.
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jxjM7S at no extra
charge.[CC]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Morgan Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MORGAN, et al., by
and through his parent and next friend, Andrea Morgan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:10-cv-01511-RJL (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 and Local Civil
Rule 23.1(b), ask the Court for the fourth time to certify the
Plaintiff class.
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Edg9Zf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael L. Huang, Esq.
Kathleen L. Millian, Esq.
TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP
1816 12th Street, NW, Suite 303
Washington, DC 20009-4422
Telephone: (202) 204-8479
- and
Jane Perkins, Esq.
NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
1512 E. Franklin Street, Suite 110
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Telephone: (919) 968-6308
DONALD TRUMP: Must File Class Cert Response by Oct. 17
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK LIVES MATTER D.C.,
et al., v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01469 (D.D.C.,
Filed June 04, 2020), the Hon. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich entered an
order that the defendants shall file a response to the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification on or before Oct. 17, 2024; and the
plaintiffs shall file a reply on or before Nov. 21, 2024.
The nature of suit states civil rights and neglect of duty.
Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and
businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States
from 2017 to 2021. Trump received a Bachelor of Science degree in
economics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968.[CC]
DUDE PRODUCTS: Class Settlement in Charleston Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Commissioners of Public
Works of the City of Charleston (d.b.a. Charleston Water System),
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Dude Products Inc. Case No. 2:24-cv-02935-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Mark Gergel entered an order granting Plaintiff's
motion for final approval of class action settlement and an award
of attorneys' fees.
The Parties are ordered to continue to effectuate the Settlement
Agreements in accordance with their terms.
Accordingly, the Court certifies a settlement class as follows:
Settlement Class:
"All STP Operators in the United States whose systems were in
operation between May 9, 2021 and May 31, 2024."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are counsel of record (and
their respective law firms) for any of the Parties, employees
of
the Defendant, and any judge presiding over this action and
their
staff, and all members of their immediate families.
The Court finds that the settlement reached in this case was the
result of a fair process. The Parties here agreed to conserve legal
resources to focus on a final resolution of the case. Additionally,
as outlined in Plaintiff’s motion, the proposed settlement
follows hard-fought litigation in the Related Case and was the
result of arm’s length negotiations between Class Counsel and
counsel for Defendant.
Given the complexity of the factual and legal issues presented in
this case, the preparation, prosecution, and settlement of this
case required significant skill and effort on the part of
Plaintiff’s counsel. Accordingly, the Court grants Class
Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
On Aug. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff moved for final approval of class
action settlement and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The
Court received a response in support of the settlement and no
objection.
Dude Products is a company that focuses on personal hygiene,
specifically in the consumer goods industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Iu8mla at no extra
charge.[CC]
EATON CORP: Chambers Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL CHAMBERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EATON CORPORATION, EATON AEROSPACE
LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV18314, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on September 26, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-08298 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' violations of California's
Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code.
Eaton Corporation is a power management company with its principal
place of business in Ohio.
Eaton Aerospace LLC is a power management company with its
principal place of business in Ohio. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christian Keeney, Esq.
Alis M. Moon, Esq.
Mossamat N. Karim, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 885-1360
Facsimile: (949) 885-1380
Email: christian.keeney@jacksonlewis.com
alis.moon@jacksonlewis.com
mossamat.karim@jacksonlewis.com
ELON MUSK: Court Certifies Class in Pampena Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIUSEPPE PAMPENA, et al.,
v. ELON MUSK, Case No. 3:22-cv-05937-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Charles Breyer entered an order:
-- certifying the following class in this action:
"All persons and entities who sold the publicly traded stock or
call options, or purchased the put options, of Twitter, Inc.
during the period from May 13, 2022 through Oct. 4, 2022, both
dates inclusive, and who suffered damages by Defendant's
alleged
violations of section 10(b) and of the Exchange Act"; and
-- appointing Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP and Bottini & Bottini,
Inc. as class counsel and Nancy Price, John Garrett, and Brian
Belgrave as class representatives.
And as the Court has already explained, the fact that Twitter's
stock price rose after Musk's October 4, 2022 correction of his
allegedly misleading statements is evidence that the statements
themselves had an impact on Twitter's stock price.
Musk's rebuttal evidence is insufficient to rebut the Basic
presumption at this stage, so class-wide reliance is presumed.
The Court's determination that the Basic presumption of reliance
applies therefore means that Plaintiffs satisfy Rule 23(b)(3).
Elon Musk is a businessman and investor known for his key roles in
the space company SpaceX and the automotive company Tesla, Inc.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x9O6ux at no extra
charge.[CC]
EMPIRE BUILDING: Rondon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Donald Gregorio De Jesus Rondon, Julio Efrain, Mauro Zacarias
Hernandez, Miguel Pinzon, Noe Eulises Calderon Pineda, and Jose
Manuel Orellana Lopez, on behalf of themselves, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. EMPIRE BUILDING
CONSULTING INC., and LIANG CHEN, individually, Case No.
1:24-cv-05741-ENV-JRC (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2024), is brought for
Defendants' violations of: the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the overtime provisions of the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL") and New York Comp. Codes R. & Regs
("NYCRR").
Despite Plaintiffs regularly working beyond forty hours a week,
Defendant refused to pay Plaintiffs overtime wages in violation of
the FLSA and NYLL. Furthermore, Defendant deliberately hid its
unlawful compensation practices by failing to furnish Plaintiffs
with accurate and/or complete wage statements as required under the
NYLL and NYCCRR. Specifically, Defendant failed to regularly
provide Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements on each payday,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as construction
workers in various trades at various locations in New York.
Empire is a construction company that provides various construction
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
- and -
Kenneth Katz, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, New York 10017
Phone: Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
Email: kjkatz@katzmelinger.com
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Court Vacates Oct. 9 Dispositive Bid Date
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE GONZALEZ GOMEZ, ET
AL., v. EPIC LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C.; JOHN CONSTANT; MARTY
SILER; AND EPIC LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-02198-JAR (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson
entered an order vacating the dispositive motion deadline of Oct.
9, 2024, and resetting that deadline once the motion for class
certification and Defendants' motion to decertify are resolved.
On August 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class
certification pursuant to Rule 23.
In support of that motion, Plaintiffs purport to attach H-2B visa
application documents spanning from 2012 through 2023. The
Plaintiffs, however, have attached only a portion of the documents
they reference and only one page of those documents is dated after
2012.
The Defendants, in their response, have highlighted this
evidentiary deficiency. The Court, then, directs the Plaintiffs to
file a reply brief addressing this issue on or before Friday, Oct.
11, 2024.
Epic specializes in designing and building creative, functional and
fabulous landscapes.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WG9w71 at no extra
charge.[CC]
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Phillips Sues Over Illegally Collected Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Nichole Phillips, on behalf herself and all others
similarly situated v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2024-01419552-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Orange Cty., Aug. 19, 2024), alleging violation of the Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") Business & Professions Code, that seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief, restitution, and
disgorgement to remedy the Plaintiff who paid illegally collected
pest control fees ("Fees") to Defendants.
This action further seeks to remedy the Defendants' unfair,
unlawful and fraudulent business practices, and to ensure that all
California consumers are warned that when the least properties from
the Defendants, the latter will illegally collect pest control
fess.
Under the Agreement, specifically under the section labeled "LESSOR
PAY UNCHECKED UTILITIES / RESIDENT PAYS CHECKED UTILITIES," the
item "Pest" is checked to indicate that it will be paid for by the
Resident. The $2.00 Pest Control Fee was charged from the moment
the Plaintiff signed the agreement with the Defendant, most likely
as a prophylactic measure against any infestations.
By collecting Fees from the Plaintiff and the Class, The Defendants
both actively and passively asserted to the Plaintiff, the Class,
and the general consuming public, that the Defendants would
shoulder pest control expenses in the properties they leave out
unless the infestation is caused by the tenant when the Defendants
refused to do so, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff signed a Residential Lease Term Agreement with the
Defendants.
Equity is a real estate company that owns and operates high-quality
rental apartment properties throughout the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark D. Potter, Esq.
James M. Treglio, Esq.
POTTER HANDY LLP
100 Pine, Ste. 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 534-1911
Fax: (888) 422-5191
Email: mark@potterhandy.com
jimt@potterhandy.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Logan Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Barbara Logan, Sarah Snyder,
Rhonda Greene, David Conoly, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case
No. 3:24-cv-00576-DJN (E.D. Va., Aug. 14, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Experian -- https://www.experian.com/ -- is a global data and
technology company, powering opportunities for people and
businesses around the world.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
Mark Clifton Leffler, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
Newport News, VA 23601
Phone: (757) 930-3660
Fax: (757) 930-3662
Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
craig@clalegal.com
mark@clalegal.com
- and -
Emily Connor Kennedy, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (757) 930-3660
Fax: (757) 930-3662
Email: emily@clalegal.com
FALFURRIAS CAPITAL: Bellyard Partners Sues Over Deceptive Conduct
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bellyard Partners, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. FALFURRIAS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, GLOBAL
PLASMA SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 24CV010221 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton
Cty., Aug. 13, 2024), is brought against the Defendants'
fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading conduct that violated the
laws of Georgia.
Falfurrias Capital Partners, LP and Global Plasma Solutions Inc.
("GPS") prey on consumers desperate to cleanse the air and protect
themselves and the public from ailments including the COVID-19
virus. Defendants represent that their Needlepoint Bipolar
Ionization ("NPBI") technology and the products containing this
technology (the "Products") eliminate the COVID-19 virus, even
though these Products do not. the Defendants' "profits over people"
scheme won them acclaim, publicity, and generated hundreds of
millions of dollars in sales at the expense of the Plaintiff and
Class Members throughout the State of Georgia. As part of this
widescale fraud, Plaintiff was one of many that were harmed by
Defendants' deceptions in the State of Georgia.
While each Defendant benefited from these deceptions, Defendant
Falfurrias benefited the greatest and received a $225,000,000
dividend just nine months after the declaration of the COVID-19
pandemic. To further its deception - while also hiding significant
defects in its Products - Defendants deceptively represent
company-funded testing as "independent" while also using test
conditions that are not representative of the real-world use of the
Products.
The Defendants manufacture, sell, and distribute the Products using
marketing and advertising campaigns specifically targeted to
consumers that are aware and fearful of the COVID-19 virus.
Plaintiff and those similarly situated ("Class Members") relied on
Defendants' misrepresentations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Georgia LLC with its principal place of business
located in Fulton County, Georgia.
Falfurrias Capital Partners, LP is a Delaware limited partnership
with its principal place of business located in Charlotte, North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons, Ste. 102
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Phone: (888) 412-5291
Email: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
- and -
Dennis C. Reich, Esq.
REICH & BINSTOCK LLP
4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77024
Phone: (713) 622-7271
Fax: (713) 623-8724
Email: dreich@reichandbinstock.com
- and -
Michael A. Mills, Esq.
THE MILLS LAW FIRM
8811 Gaylord Drive, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77024
Phone: (832) 548-4414
Fax: (832) 327-7443
Email: mickey@millsmediation.com
FASTENAL COMPANY: Ismail Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALAAELDIN ISMAIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FASTENAL COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06671 (E.D.N.Y., September 23, 2024) accuses the Defendant
of violating the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a supply chain support in its
office located at 180 Morgan Avenue, Brooklyn, NY. For the duration
of Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant willfully failed to
compensate Plaintiff at the statutorily required overtime rate of
pay for the hours that Plaintiff worked beyond 40 in a workweek
under the FLSA and the NYLL. Additionally, the Defendant failed to
pay timely wages in violation of the NYLL, says the suit.
Plaintiff Ismail also alleges that the Defendant failed to comply
NYLL's requirement that employers pay wages to their employees who
perform manual labor not less frequently than on a weekly basis.
Headquartered in Winona, MN, Fastenal Company is a supply chain
solutions company and a wholesale distributor of industrial and
construction supplies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
STEVENSON MARINO LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (212) 939-7229
FCA US: Objections to Report Overruled in Part
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE CROWELL, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. FCA US
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00013-MN (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Noreika
entered an order that FCA US's objections to the Report are
overruled-in-part and sustained-in-part, and the report is
adopted-in-part and rejected-in-part.
The Court finds that the Report's reasoning is sound and grounded
in the CAC's allegations. The Court agrees with the Report's
recommendation, and Defendant’s objection is overruled.
The Plaintiffs' claim for equitable relief under the UCL fails
because it does not plead there is an inadequate remedy at law
under the CLRA or otherwise.
The Defendant's objection regarding whether Plaintiffs adequately
pleaded lack of merchantability is overruled.
The Court, after conducting its own, independent de novo review,
agrees with the reasoning in the Report and its conclusion;
therefore, Defendant's objection is overruled.
The Court finds Judge Bibas' observation most persuasive: "a
plaintiff's injury is not pegged to the laws of different states:
an injury is an injury even if no law allows recovery."
Resultantly, the Court adopts the recommendation in the Report and
will defer the standing inquiry until class certification.
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Sept. 27, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jQ6S4Y
at no extra charge.[CC]
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Villanueva Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Villanueva, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC d/b/a
LA Fitness, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 24TRCV02107 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 21, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-07255-PA-BFM.
The Plaintiff alleges Fitness unlawfully debited his bank account
on a recurring basis without written authorization and refused to
reimburse him when he disputed the allegedly unauthorized charges.
The Plaintiff alleges the following claims for relief: violations
of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA") and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Bryan A. Merryman, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433
Phone: (213) 620-7700
Facsimile: (213) 452-2329
Email: bmerryman@whitecase.com
FIVE GUYS:: Removes Wilkins ADA Suit to E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------
ANDREW WILKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE GUYS ENTERPRISES LLC, INC., Defendant,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Court of Common Pleas
of the State of Pennsylvania, County of Chester (Case No.
2024-02543-TT) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on March 26, 2024.
The clerk of court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05189.
The suit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Paul S. Diamond.
Five Guys Enterprises, LLC owns and operates restaurants. The
Company offers prepared foods, snacks, and drinks for on-premises
and off-premises consumption. Five Guys Enterprises serves
customers in the United States and Canada. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Erica A. Shikunov, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
Three Parkway
1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Tel: (267) 319-7817
Email: erica.shikunov@jacksonlewis.com
FLO HEALTH: Court Tosses Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Scheduling Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frasco v. Flo Health,
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 29, 2021), the
Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend the scheduling order and reinstate the briefing
related to plaintiffs' original motion for class certification.
On June 18, 2024, the Court permitted Defendants Meta and Flo to
proffer economic expert witnesses on the issue of damages.
The Plaintiffs may present a rebuttal economist for the topics on
which Meta and Flo's experts will opine.
Consequently, there is no good reason to permit new affirmative
expert testimony that plaintiffs did not pursue when they had that
opportunity, especially when doing so now would require permitting
other parties a rebuttal expert, which would only protract
litigation at this late stage.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.[CC]
FLO HEALTH: Joint Bid to File Class Cert Under Seal Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frasco v. Flo Health,
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 29, 2021), the
Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order that the parties' joint
motion to file under seal in connection with the Plaintiffs'
original motion for class certification, is denied as moot in light
of the Plaintiffs' revised motion for class certification.
-- The parties may renew the motion in connection with the revised
motion for class certification as circumstances warrant.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.
Flo is a health app that provides menstrual cycle and ovulation
tracking.[CC]
GEORGIA: Wins Summary Judgment v. Georgia Advocacy Office
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Georgia Advocacy
Office, et al., v. State of Georgia, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-03999-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Michael Brown entered
an order grating the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and
Defendants' motions for leave to file under seal.
-- The Court denies as moot the remaining pending motions.
-- The Plaintiffs, in essence, ask the Court to eliminate GNETS
or
require the State to do things the Court is not authorized to
order. "But 'federal courts have no authority to erase a duly
enacted law from the statute books.'"
Georgia is a southeastern U.S. state whose terrain spans coastal
beaches, farmland and mountains.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1a7byI at no extra
charge.[CC]
GEV WIND: Nichols Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Technicians
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARLO NICHOLS, and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), v. GEV
WIND POWER U.S., LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00053-O (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiff's
motion to proceed as a collective action on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated employees, and to authorize notice as
follows:
"All current and former non-exempt technicians employed by GEV
Wind Power U.S., LLC within three years of the date of the
Court's
order authorizing notice who worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek."
The Plaintiff asks the Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion to
proceed as a collective action and to authorize notice to similarly
situated employees, ordering:
(i) Defendant to provide contact information for all similarly
situated employees in electronic format within fourteen days
of
its order granting this motion, and
(ii) that the statute of limitations for all similarly situated
employees be tolled for each day beyond fourteen days that
Defendant fails to timely produce contact information.
The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were only paid
straight time for all mobilization and demobilization work
performed without such work being counted for purposes of
determining overtime compensation, resulting in unpaid overtime
compensation for all travel hours worked over forty hours in the
workweek.
The Defendant's practice applied to all non-exempt technicians.
GEV provides wind turbine maintenance and wind turbine services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LUqWtz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon C. Callahan, Esq.
Fernando M. Bustos, Esq.
Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq.
Benjamin E. Casey, Esq.
BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C.
Lubbock, TX 79408-1980
Telephone: (806) 780-3976
Facsimile: (806) 780-3800
E-mail: bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com
fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com
mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com
bcasey@bustoslawfirm.com
GILEAD SCIENCES: Searcy Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN SEARCY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. GILEAD
SCIENCES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01523-MTS (E.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Matthew Schelp entered an order that:
-- Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, is denied without
prejudice
and is subject to refiling.
-- The Defendant's motions to exclude, are denied without
prejudice
and are subject to refiling.
-- The parties shall submit a joint proposed scheduling plan
regarding class certification no later than Friday, Oct. 11,
2024.
-- The unopposed Motion to withdraw as attorney is granted.
Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Foster City, California, that focuses on
researching and developing antiviral drugs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gQ3ZNJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
GITHUB INC: Court Stays Trial Court Proceedings
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. DOE 1, et al., v.
GITHUB, INC., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-06823-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion to seek interlocutory appeal.
-- The Court also grants the Plaintiffs' request for a stay of
trial
court proceedings while the order certifying interlocutory
appeal
is reviewed by the Ninth Circuit.
-- The parties are ordered to notify the Court within 10 days of
the
receipt of a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. section
1292(b). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion will be granted.
GitHub is a developer platform that allows developers to create,
store, manage and share their code.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Ev7Ui at no extra
charge.[CC]
GUNSTER YOAKLEY: Ohlman Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mike Ohlman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Case
No. 502024CA004996XXXAMB was removed from the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Aug. 16, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:24-cv-80992-AMC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Gunster -- https://gunster.com/ -- is a full-service commercial law
firm with nearly a century of counseling Florida's leading
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary Steven Menzer, Esq.
Michael S. Hill, Esq.
MENZER & HILL, P.A.
7280 W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite # 301 N
Boca Raton, FL 33433
Phone: (561) 327-7207
Fax: (561) 431-4611
Email: gmenzer@menzerhill.com
mhill@menzerhill.com
- and -
Jonathan Cary Schwartz, Esq.
SCHWARTZ LEGAL, PLLC
8810 SW 8th St
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 648-1915
Email: jonathan@jcslegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD
1201 W. Peachtree Street, Ste 4900
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 881-7584
Email: kristy.brown@alston.com
- and -
Jacqueline Marie Arango, Esq.
AKERMAN, SENTERFITT
Three Brickell City Centre
98 Southeast Seventh Street, Suite 1100
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 374-5600
Fax: (305) 374-5095
Email: jacqueline.arango@akerman.com
HHR REAL: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Properties
---------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HHR REAL ESTATE HOLDING LLC; and
R.D.H.H., INC. d/b/a SAVELAND SUPERMARKET, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-23713 (S.D. Fla., September 26, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of their property and business. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered
architectural barriers in common areas such parking, entrance
access and path of travel, and public restrooms.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove
the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when
such removal is readily achievable for the place of public
accommodation.
HHR Real Estate Holding LLC is a commercial property owner and
operator doing business in Miami, Florida.
R.D.H.H., Inc., doing business as Saveland Supermarket, is a
commercial supermarket owner and operator doing business in Miami,
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Wins Bid for Judgment vs Henkel
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHELSEA HENKEL, on behalf
of herself and other similarly situated, v. HIGHGATE HOTELS, L.P.
and COVE HAVEN, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-01435-JPW (M.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Jennifer Wilson will grant the renewed motion for
judgment as a matter of law and deny as moot the motion to
decertify class actions.
The court finds that Plaintiffs failed to prove their unjust
enrichment claim as a matter of law, and will enter judgment in
favor of Defendants.
For all of these reasons, the court finds that there was
insufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably determine that
Defendants accepted and retained the gratuity fee under such
circumstances that it would be inequitable or unjust for Defendants
to retain the gratuity fee without payment of value. Furthermore,
because the court finds that Plaintiffs failed to prove the first
and third elements of their unjust enrichment claim, the court will
grant Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Henkel initiated this action via a collective and class action
complaint on July 23, 2015, against the Defendants. Between the
initiation of this action and the filing of summary judgment
motions, Henkel amended her complaint four times.
The fourth amended complaint, which was filed on Nov. 14, 2018, set
forth eight claims against Defendants: unpaid minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (Count 1);
unpaid overtime wages in violation of the FLSA (Count 2); unpaid
minimum wages in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
("MWA") (Count 3); unpaid overtime wages in violation of the MWA
(Count 4); breach of contract to an express third-party beneficiary
(Count 5); breach of contract to an intended third-party
beneficiary (Count 6); unjust enrichment (Count 7); and conversion
(Count 8).
Highgate Hotels operates as a real estate investment and
hospitality management company.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aIQ0Vs at no extra
charge.[CC]
HOME PARTNERS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK RICHMOND, MICHAEL
MCDERMOTT and KELLEY MCDERMOTT, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. HOME PARTNERS HOLDINGS LLC, HP
WASHINGTON I LLC, HPA BORROWER 2017-1 LLC, SFR Borrower 2022-2 LLC,
SFR Borrower 2021-2 LLC, and OPVHHJV LLC, d/b/a PATHLIGHT PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, Case No. 3:22-cv-05704-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order setting the deadline for the
Defendants to file their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a fifth amended complaint to Oct. 16, 2024, and setting the
deadline for the Plaintiffs to file reply briefs for their motion
for leave to file a fifth amended complaint and for their amended
motion for class certification to no later than Oct. 30, 2024.
On Aug. 29, 2024, the Court granted the Parties' request to extend
the deadlines for briefing of Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
certification so that Plaintiffs' motion and initial brief would be
due on Sept. 17, 2024; Defendants' opposition would be due on Oct.
16, 2024; and Plaintiffs' Reply would be due on Oct. 23, 2024.
On Sept. 17, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
fifth amended complaint.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iKDZmb at no extra
charge.[CC]
IKEA DISTRIBUTION: Bernards Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Travis Bernards, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. IKEA DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC.,
AND DOES 1 TO 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 24CV0001465 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Napa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on Sept. 30, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-06872.
The Plaintiffs Complaint asserts causes of action for: Failure to
Pay Wages For All Hours Worked At Minimum Wages In Violation of
Labor Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages For Daily Overtime Worked
in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal
Periods In Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Authorize or Permit
Rest Periods In Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide
Complete and Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code;
Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due At
Time of Separation of Employment m Violation of Labor Code; and
Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business and Professions
Code.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
Omar M. Aniff, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com
omar.aniff@ogletree.com
INDEGENE INC: Class Cert Reply in Progressive Extended to Oct. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND
REHAB CORP. v. INDEGENE, INC. et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-10106-ESK-AMD (D.N.J.) the Hon. Judge Edward Kiel entered
an order extending class certification reply to Oct. 11, 2024.
Indegene offers research & development, commercial, and marketing
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e6IijF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew N. Fiorovanti, Esq.
GIORDANO, HALLERAN & CIESLA P.C.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 300
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 741-3900
Facsimile: (732) 224-6599
E-mail: mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com
IPIC THEATERS: Johnson Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IPIC Theaters, LLC.
The case is styled as Christine Johnson, Harry Crouch, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. IPIC Theaters, LLC,
Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-01769-ODW-DTB (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 19, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Injunctive &
Declaratory Relief.
IPIC Theaters -- https://www.ipic.com/ -- offers premium yet
affordable movie experience for everyone.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alfred G. Rava, Esq.
RAVA LAW FIRM
3667 Voltaire Street
San Diego, CA 92106
Phone: (619) 238-1993
Fax: (619) 838-6282
Email: alrava@cox.net
ISS FACILITY: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA GARCIA, v. ISS
FACILITY SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07807-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting in
part and denying in part renewed motion for class certification.
Garcia has made an adequate showing that class certification is
warranted for the classes she proposes, limited to ISS employees at
the El Dorado Hills facility operated by Broadridge.
While her diligence in pursuing discovery raises some concerns, she
has also shown that she and her counsel will adequately represent
the class.
In the event ISS intends to seek decertification on grounds of
inadequate numerosity, it must demonstrate that the arbitration
agreements on which it relies were not superseded by mediation
agreements. Any such decertification motion should be brought
within the next 60 days.
A further case management conference will be held on Jan. 9, 2025,
with a joint case management conference due one week in advance.
Garcia, however, has failed to establish that conditions at all the
locations where ISS employees work are sufficiently similar to
support class treatment of the claims she advances. Garcia has,
however, made an adequate showing to support class certification as
to the employees at the particular worksite where she was employed,
although a potentially fatal numerosity issue will remain.
The Plaintiff alleges various violations of wage and hours laws.
The Plaintiff Garcia was employed by ISS as a "janitor and
custodial
Detailer" from May of 2018 to August of 2019.
ISS Facility is an international facilities maintenance and
staffing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gYN4k5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
JENNIFER TATTANELLI: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pasquale Agnone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Jennifer Tattanelli Creations, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-06889 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services
Nepenthes America provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.jennifertattanelli.it (hereinafter
"Jennifertattanelli.it" 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, Jennifertattanelli.it, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Jennifer Tattanelli Creations' 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.
Jennifertattanelli.it is a commercial website and online platform
that provides footwear, clothing, and accessories offered by
Defendant in connection with its physical locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: 718.705.8706
Fax: 718.705.8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
JERICO PICTURES: Werner Files Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jerico Pictures, Inc.
The case is styled as Ralf Werner, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Jerico Pictures, Inc. doing business
as: National Public Data, Case No. 0:24-cv-61526-DSL (S.D. Fla.,
Aug. 20, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Jerico Pictures, Inc., doing business as National Public Data --
https://www.nationalpublicdata.com/ -- is a data broker company
that performs employee background checks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
Tricia R. Herzfeld, Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI, & WALL PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 800-6225
Email: joey@hsglawgroup.com
tricia@hsglawgroup.com
- and -
Peter J. Jannace, Esq.
HERZFELD SUETHOLZ GASTEL LENISKI & WALL, PLLC
515 Park Avenue
Louisville, KY 40208
Phone: (646) 783-9810
Email: peter@hsglawgroup.com
JOEL BIEBER: Roark Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------
Nancy Roark, and other similarly situated v. JOEL BIEBER, LLC, THE
JOEL BIEBER FIRM, Case No. 3:24-cv-00600-HEH (E.D. Va., Aug. 26,
2024), is brought to recover the earned and unpaid wages, statutory
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs on behalf of
Plaintiff and all Class Members in violation of the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Virginia Overtime Law ("VOL"), and
Virgina Wage Payment Act ("VWPA").
At no time during Plaintiff's relevant period of employment did the
Plaintiff perform employment duties for JBF's benefit that were
exempt from the FLSA or Virginia law mandate requiring JBF to pay
the Plaintiff at the rate of one-and-one-half times the Plaintiff's
regular hourly rate for overtime the Plaintiff worked exceeding 40
hours per week.
JBF's failure to fully and timely pay the Plaintiff and the Class
Members all earned overtime premium wages for all compensable
overtime they worked exceeding 40 hours per week for JBF's primary
benefit as required by the FLSA and Virginia law each pay period
was willful, knowing, and reckless.
JBF's failure to fully and timely pay the Plaintiff and the Class
Members all earned overtime premium wages for all compensable
overtime they worked exceeding 40 hours per week for JBF's primary
benefit as required by the FLSA and Virginia law each pay period
was not the result of good faith mistake by JBF, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by JBF to perform paralegal duties
within JBF's Richmond, Virginia, law office.
JBF operated continuously and substantially as a law firm,
providing legal services to clients from law offices located
staffed by JBF employees within Virginia, South Carolina, North
Carolina, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 587-9373
Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
JOHN WOOD: Response Filing to Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Walther, et al., v. Wood,
et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00294 (N.D. Ind., Filed July 14, 2023),
the Hon. Judge Gretchen S. Lund entered an order granting the
Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to file response
to motion for class certification.
The Defendants are granted to and including Oct. 18, 2024, to file
responses to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The nature of suit states Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).[CC]
JOSEPH KELLY: Tapia Suit Removed from State Ct. to D. New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TAPIA PROMOTIONS, LLC, on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated v. JOSEPH G. KELLY
and The JGK LLC, Case No. D-202-CV-2023-04089 (Filed May 30,2023),
was removed from the State of New Mexico, County of Bernalillo,
Second Judicial District to the United States District Court for
the District of New Mexico on Sept. 30, 2024.
The New Mexico District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-00973-GBW-JHR to the proceeding.
Mr. Kelly was interested in working with Tapia Promotions to pursue
a possible joint venture with respect to establishing a boxing
league and promoting a fight or fights in New Mexico. The suit
alleges breach of agreement, misrepresentation, and fraud.
Tapia Promotions promotes both professional and amateur boxing,
combat sports, and other events in the State of New Mexico and
elsewhere.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Angelo J. Artuso, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ANGELO J. ARTUSO
Las Cruces, NM 88004
Telephone: (505) 306-5063
E-mail: angelo@nmliberty.com
Defendant Joseph G Kelly appears pro se.
JP MORGAN: Redactions of Class Cert Transcripts in USVI OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Government of the United
States Virgin Islands, v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No.
1:22-cv-10904-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jed Rakoff entered an
order accepting the redactions of the relevant class certification
transcripts to the court for in camera review.
Accordingly, the court orders the class counsel to furnish the
redacted exhibits to the non-party movant New York Times.
JP Morgan offers corporate and investment banking, commercial
banking, equity, sales and trading and treasury services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HR3RLf at no extra
charge.[CC]
KANDI TECH: Ventakaraman Bid for Class Cert. Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SRINIVASAN VENKATARAMAN,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-08082-DEH
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an order granting in
part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, with a class
period start date of Aug. 10, 2015.
Although Plaintiff's expert purports to show that trading in Kandi
stock was efficient as of June 10, 2015, it does not follow that
the class’s injury began on that date.
Trading in shares could have been efficient since the moment a
company went public, and many years before any alleged
misstatements giving rise to liability under the Exchange Act—but
that would not mean that the class period should start then.
The proper date for the start of a class period is no earlier than
the first alleged actionable false public statement. Here, on the
current record, that would be on August 10, 2015, when the 2015 2Q
10-Q statement was first published.
The Plaintiff commenced this action on June 10, 2020. After the
Court granted Defendants' first motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff
filed the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on Dec. 3, 2021.
In this putative class action, the Plaintiff, individually and
purportedly on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this
action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 by the Defendants.
Kandi is a Chinese battery and electric vehicle manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5FuWTu at no extra
charge.[CC]
KUNES COUNTRY AUTOMOTIVE: Cullen Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kunes Country
Automotive Management Inc., et al. The case is styled as Buddy
Cullen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Kunes Country Automotive Management Inc. doing business as:
Kunes Auto Group, Kunes Ford of East Moline Inc., Case No.
4:24-cv-04153-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill., Aug. 14, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Kunes Country Automotive Management Inc. doing business as Kunes
Auto Group -- https://shopkunes.com/ -- are a family-owned and
operated dealership group with locations across Wisconsin,
Illinois, and Iowa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 233-1550
Email: tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
rstephan@stephanzouras.com
LAMOILLE HEALTH: Class Settlement in Marshall Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICIA MARSHALL, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LAMOILLE
HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00166-wks (D. Vt.), the
Hon. Judge William Sessions, III entered an order granting final
approval of class action settlement.
The Court dismisses with prejudice all claims of the Class against
Lamoille Health Partners, Inc. in the Litigation, without costs and
fees except as explicitly provided for in the Settlement
Agreement.
The Court grants Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Service Award. The Court awards Class Counsel
$179,982.00 in attorneys' fees and $751.31 for the reimbursement of
litigation expenses, to be paid according to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
The Court certifies the following Class for settlement purposes
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), subject to the Class
exclusions set forth in the Settlement Agreement:
The Settlement Class:
"the individuals whose personal information may have been
impacted
during the Data Security Incident, including those individuals
who
received a letter from LHP notifying them of the Data Security
Incident."
Specifically Excluded From the Settlement Class Are:
(1) the judge presiding over this Action, and members of the
presiding judge’s direct family;
(2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies,
successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its
parents have a controlling interest and their current or
former
officers and directors; and
(3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for
Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline.
Lamoille Health Partners provides comprehensive healthcare for the
whole family, from newborns to seniors.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XPKyTy at no extra
charge.[CC]
LOUISIANA: Suit Seeks to Certify Inmate Class & Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VOICE OF THE EXPERIENCED,
a membership organization on behalf of itself and its members; and
MYRON SMITH, DAMARIS JACKSON, NATE WALKER, DARRIUS WILLIAMS, KEVIAS
HICKS, JOSEPH GUILLORY, KENDRICK STEVENSON, and ALVIN WILLIAMS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JAMES
LEBLANC, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections; TIMOTHY HOOPER, in his
official capacity as Warden of Louisiana State Penitentiary; MISTY
STAGG, in her official capacity as Director of Prison Enterprises,
Inc.; the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS; and
PRISON ENTERPRISES, INC. Case No. 3:23-cv-01304-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the
following class and subclass under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure:
General Class:
"A class comprising all persons incarcerated at LSP who
currently
are, or may in the future be, assigned to the Farm Line"; and
ADA Subclass
A subclass comprising all persons incarcerated at LSP with
disabilities that substantially limits one or more of their
major
life activities, who currently are, or may in the future, be
assigned to the Farm Line."
The Plaintiffs further request that:
Myron Smith, Damaris Jackson, Nate Walker, Darrius Williams,
Kevias Hicks, Joseph Guillory, and Alvin Williams be appointed
as
class representatives for the General Class;
Damaris Jackson, Nate Walker, Kevias Hicks, and Joseph Guillory
be
appointed as class representatives for the ADA Subclass.
The Plaintiffs further request that, for the reasons set forth in
the Hill Declaration, the Nimni Declaration, and the Wright
Declaration, undersigned counsel be appointed as class counsel
pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xSFKbc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lydia Wright, Esq.
Samantha Bosalavage, Esq.
THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE
1024 Elysian Fields Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70117
Telephone: (504) 529-5955
E-mail: lwright@defendla.org
sbosalavage@defendla.org
- and -
Oren Nimni, Esq.
Amaris Montes, Esq.
RIGHTS BEHIND BARS
416 Florida Avenue NW, Se. 26152
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 455-4399
E-mail: oren@rightsbehindbars.org
amaris@rightsbehindbars.org
- and -
Joshua Hill Jr., Esq.
Jeremy A. Benjamin, Esq.
Michael McGregor, Esq.
Arielle B. McTootle, Esq.
Ricardo R. Sabater, Esq.
Leah R. Weiser, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas,
New York, NY 10019-6064
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
E-mail: jhill@paulweiss.com
jbenjamin@paulweiss.com
amctootle@paulweiss.com
rsabater@paulweiss.com
lweiser@paulweiss.com
LUTHMAN BACKLUND: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Senior Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. LUTHMAN BACKLUND FOODS USA INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-07361 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2024) contends that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
interactive website, https://nicks.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase a Nick's
Krispi Cookie. She attempted to purchase a Nick's Krispi Cookie but
was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item[s] to
the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes
and other barriers on Defendant's Website, which prevented her from
doing so, the lawsuit alleges.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation,
the lawsuit says.
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.
Ms. Senior is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
The Defendant offers Swedish-style keto friendly ice cream and
protein bars.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
MAC COSMETICS: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert-Related Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IGNACIO MACIEL, RUTH
TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
persons, v. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., a New York corporation; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03718-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order grating motion to modify
briefing schedule on the Daubert motions and motion for class
certification as follows:
1. Daubert Motions and Motion for Class Certification due by
Oct. 28, 2024.
2. Oppositions to Daubert Motions and Motion for Class
Certification due by Dec. 10, 2024.
3. Replies re: Daubert Motions and Motion for Class
Certification
due by Jan. 10, 2025
MAC Cosmetics is a Canadian cosmetics manufacturer.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=07cCsb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Righetti, Esq.
John Glugoski, Esq.
RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
2001 Union Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 983-0900
E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com
jglugoski@righettilaw.com
- and -
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Telephone: (949) 270-2798
Facsimile: (949) 209-0303
E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison S. Wallin, Esq.
Susan T. Ye, Esq.
Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
Telephone: (310) 553-0308
Facsimile: (800) 715-1330
E-mail: awallin@littler.com
sye@littler.com
njenkins@littler.com
MARINHEALTH MEDICAL: Fact Discovery Modified to May 20, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M., individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MARINHEALTH MEDICAL
CENTER, Case No. 3:23-cv-04179-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Orrick entered an order granting the Parties' joint
stipulation to modify the class certification and pretrial
schedule:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiff Preliminary Expert Nov. 2, 2024 March 3,
2025
Reports
Defendant Preliminary Expert Nov. 2, 2024 March 3,
2025
Reports
Rebuttal Expert Reports Jan. 10, 2025 May 12,
2025
Motion for Class Certification March 3, 2025 July 3,
2025
Opposition March 28, 2025 July 28,
2025
Reply April 21, 2025 Aug. 21,
2025
Motion Hearing May 14, 2025 Sept. 17,
2025
Expert discovery cutoff July 21, 2025 Nov. 21,
2025
Fact discovery cutoff: Jan. 20, 2026 May 20, 2026
Pretrial Conference Feb. 23, 2026 June 29,
2026
MarinHealth is a healthcare system serving Marin County and the
surrounding areas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aI1OVn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Tiara Avaness, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
3550 Watt Avenue, Suite 140
Sacramento, CA 95821
Telephone: (916) 616-2936
E-mail: jrparker@almeidalawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David A. Yudelson, Esq.
Sydney M. Wright, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH
& PROPHETE, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 909-7775
E-mail: dyudelson@constangy.com
smwright@constangy.com
MAUI, HI: Hoyte Sues Over Hawai'i Revised Statutes Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Hoyte; D And S Ventures, LLC; North Shore Zips, LLC, and
others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF MAUI; COUNTY OF MAUI
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, ZONING ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION; KATE BLYSTONE IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING OF COUNTY OF MAUI, Case No.
1:24-cv-00349-LEK-KJM (D. Haw., Aug. 12, 2024), is brought arising
out of the enactment of Ordinance 5238 of the Maui County Code
("MCC") which is in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes ("HRS")
the United States Constitution, and the Hawai'i Constitution.
The purpose of this lawsuit is to compel Defendants to recognize
the prior lawful use of those commercial zipline operators,
including Plaintiffs, that had received prior approval by
Defendants to conduct said operations in agriculturally zoned
districts--either as a principal or an accessory use--before the
effective date of Ordinance 5238.
A declaration by this Court that Ordinance 5238 is void and invalid
because it phases out and/or outright eliminates the rights of
prior lawful commercial zipline activities in agriculturally zoned
districts and an injunction against the enforcement of Ordinance
5238 until such rights are recognized, will provide Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated with effective relief. Damages incurred
by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants' actions and omissions, as
outlined herein, will additionally provide Plaintiffs with
effective relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of Washington
and of the County of Skamania.
The County is a municipal corporation and is legally responsible
for the acts and omissions of its departments, officials and
boards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michelle K. Correia, Esq.
Jessica L. Adlam, Esq.
CHUN KERR LLP
a Limited Liability Law Partnership
999 Bishop Street, Suite 2100
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 528-8200
Facsimile: (808) 536-5869
Email: mcorreia@chunkerr.com
jadlam@chunkerr.com
MAZDA MOTOR: Cauller Sues Over Vehicles with Dangerous Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Cauller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. D/B/A MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN
OPERATIONS, MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, Case No. 8:24-cv-01807 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 16, 2024), is brought to seek redress for the misconduct
of Mazda, an international manufacturer of automobiles that claims
to manufacture and sell high-quality, safe vehicles, that knowingly
exposed the purchasers and lessees of at least hundreds of
thousands of Mazda vehicles, such as Plaintiff and members of the
proposed class ("Class Members"), to a dangerous defect lurking in
their vehicles' engine.
Despite being aware of this problem for years, Mazda failed to
disclose it to Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class.
Specifically, the SKYACTIV-G 2.5T engines in certain 2018-2021
Mazda6, 2021-2024 Mazda3 and CX-30, 2016-2023 CX-9, 2019-2024 CX-5,
and 2022-2024 CX-50 vehicles ("Class Vehicles") are defective
because of a lack of structural integrity of a joint between the
engine blocks around the cylinder heads and exhaust manifold (the
"Engine Defect" or "Defect").
The Engine Defect leads to engine coolant leakage. Loss of coolant
causes the engine to overheat and catastrophic engine failure. The
Engine Defect also allows engine coolant to leak into the engine's
cylinders, damaging the cylinders. Coolant is critical to the
proper functioning of an engine. It's loss can lead to catastrophic
engine failure from overheating even in vehicles with low mileage.
It can result in the cylinder head cracking, sudden stalling, total
engine failure, and engine fires. Coolant leaking into the engine's
cylinders leads to corrosion, oil dilution and contamination, the
loss of power as the seal in the combustion chamber diminishes, and
engine failure.
Mazda admits the existence of the Engine Defect in a series of
Technical Service Bulletins ("TSBs"), but has not warned its
customers, extended the vehicle warranty, or issued a recall. The
Engine Defect is dangerous. A vehicle that stalls or experiences a
sudden engine failure is at heightened risk for collision. A
vehicle that stalls or suffers engine shutdown causes drivers to
react to remove themselves from danger, typically by exiting the
road. Drivers stranded on the side of the road are at a heightened
risk of danger from other vehicles, remoteness, or weather
elements.
The Defect is the result of: a supplier manufacturing defect in the
engine block or head gasket; the use of substandard materials in
the manufacture of the engine such that it cannot maintain adequate
pressure; a defective design of the engine; and poor quality
control procedures to ensure such defectively manufactured and/or
designed components are timely identified so they are not installed
in the Class Vehicles. Mazda's markets the Class Vehicles as safe
and dependable, even though it suffers from a defect that is not
found in other vehicles. Because of the Engine Defect, Mazda's
advertising about the safety and dependability of the Class
Vehicles is untrue and materially misleading. The Plaintiff and
other Class Members have been damaged as a result of Mazda's acts
and omissions alleged herein, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff owns a 2017 Mazda CX-9 which he purchased new from
Stokes Mazda in North Charleston, South Carolina on June 30, 2017.
Mazda Motor Corporation ("MMC") is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business in Fuchu, Aki District, Hiroshima
Prefecture, Japan, and the parent company of Mazda Motor of
America, Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Paula R. Brown, Esq.
Jennifer l. Macpherson, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619/338-1100
Fax: 619/338-1101
Email: tblood@bholaw.com
pbrown@bholaw.com
jmacpherson@bholaw.com
- and -
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
Dylan T. Martin, Esq.
Trent H. Mann, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Phone: 334/269-2343
Fax: 334/954-7555
Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
clay.barnett@beasleyAllen.com
mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com
trent.mann@beasleyallen.com
MD NOW MEDICAL: Sabin Sues Over Failure to Secure & Safeguard PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magne Sabin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MD NOW MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., Case No. CACE-24-011698
(Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Aug. 15, 2024), is
brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure
and safeguard Plaintiffs and Class Members' sensitive personal
health information ("PHI"), which, as a result, is now in criminal
cyberthieves' possession.
Specifically, in early May 2024, criminal hackers accessed
Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiffs and Class Members'
PHI stored therein, including their names, dates of birth, health
clinic name, medical diagnosis and treatment information, medical
discharge forms, and prescription information, causing widespread
injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of
Defendant who, in order to obtain healthcare services from
Defendant, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their
sensitive, non-public PHI. Defendant could not perform its
operations or provide the services it does without collecting
Plaintiffs and Class Members' PHI and retains it for many years, at
least, even after the patient provider relationship has ended.
The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class
Members by failing to safeguard their PHI it collected and
maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards
for data security to protect against cyberattacks, which fai lures
allowed criminal hackers to access and steal current and former
patients ' PHI from Defendant's care. While the full extent Of the
PHI exposed and exfiltrated in the Data Breach is currently
unknown, upon information and belief thousands of Defendant's
current and former patients were effected, if not more, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former patient of Defendant, having visited one
of Defendant's clinics in 2022 for medical treatment.
The Defendant is "Florida's largest and fastest growing urgent care
provider," providing outpatient healthcare services to patients at
over 110 clinic locations throughout Florida and virtually.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Caroline Herter, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
herter@kolawyers.com
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Loses Summary Judgment v. Masten
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MASTEN, et al., v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Case No.
1:18-cv-11229-DEH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an
order denying Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
As previously ordered, "expert discovery shall close 120 days after
the Court's ruling [on Defendants' motion]."
The parties are further ordered to submit a joint status letter
within one week of the close of discovery. The joint status letter
shall describe the efforts the parties have made to settle the
action; state whether the parties request a referral for settlement
discussions before the assigned Magistrate Judge or through the
District’s Mediation Program; state the anticipated duration of a
bench trial; identify any matters to which the Court ought to
attend prior to scheduling such a trial; and propose dates within
three weeks of the close of discovery when the parties are
available to appear before the Court to participate in a
post-discovery conference.
Defendants argue that McAlister does not raise a claim under the
Plan because she seeks relief in the form of benefits to which she
would be entitled using assumptions that do not appear in the Plan.
See Defs.' Br. 20-22. This argument is unavailing, as Plaintiffs'
(including McAlister’s) challenge to the Plan’s calculation of
benefits rests on an assertion of their rights under the Plan,
which is “governed by ERISA." That claim is therefore covered by
the CarveOut’s clear terms. Thus, even if the Release broadly
covered McAlister’s claims, the Carve-Out would apply to save
them. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is properly
denied.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendants,
alleging that the qualified joint and survivor annuity ("QJSA")
benefits that they are receiving under their MetLife retirement
plan violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").
The Plaintiffs commenced this action on December 3, 2018, and
amended their pleadings on March 26, 2019.
On April 18, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint, which was fully briefed on June 13, 2019.
On June 14, 2021, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs are retired MetLife employees who accrued retirement
benefits under a defined benefit plan governed by ERISA.
Metropolitan Life is a provider of insurance, annuities, and
employee benefit programs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OX0ddW at no extra
charge.[CC]
MOTION INDUSTRIES: Driz Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Jerolf Driz, individually, and on behalf of all I Case No.: others
similarly situated v. MOTION INDUSTRIES, INC., a corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24CV087210 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., Aug. 14, 2024), is brought against Defendants for
California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices
stemming from Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked
(minimum, straight time, and overtime wages), failure to provide
meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure
to timely pay final wages, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements, and failure to indemnify employees for expenditures.
As such, and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to
Defendants' business in California, Defendants are subject to the
California Labor Code, Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission ("IWC"), and the California Business & Professions
Code.
Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period,
Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and
practice of: Failing to pay employees for all hours worked,
including all minimum, straight time, and overtime wages in
compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders;
Failing to provide employees with timely and duty-free meal periods
in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders,
failing to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or
missed, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each
workday a meal period violation occurred; Failing to authorize and
permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in
compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and
failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a rest
period violation occurred; Willfully failing to pay employees all
minimum, straight time, overtime, meal period premium, and rest
period premium wages due within the time period specified by
California law when employment terminates; Failing to provide
employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all
the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage
Orders; and Failing to indemnify employees for expenditures
incurred in direct discharge of duties of employment.
Defendants, and each of them were on actual and constructive notice
of the improprieties alleged herein and intentionally refused to
rectify their unlawful policies. Defendants' violations, as alleged
above, during all relevant times herein were willful and
deliberate, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in Alameda County, California
as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from March 2024 to May
2024.
The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California,
including Alameda County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Arrash T. Fattahi, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
afattahi@wilshirelawfirm.com
NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Preston Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
DEMARIO PRESTON and RICHIE EDQUID, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and
DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:24-cv-08372 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 27, 2024)
seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief due to
Navy Federal's policy and practice to assess Overdraft or
Non-Sufficient Funds Fees on items that had previously triggered
NSF Fees.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant breached its contract and
promises made to the Plaintiffs and all members of the proposed
class when the Defendant charged multiple NSF Fees or NSF Fees
followed by an OD Fee on a single item.
Navy Federal has breached the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and abused its discretion in its contract. Specifically,
Navy Federal abused its contractual discretion to define the
contractual terms "each refused check" and "each returned debit
item" in a manner contrary to any reasonable, common sense
understanding of those terms. Under Navy Federal's definitions,
"each refused check" is equivalent to "each refusal of the check"
and "each returned debit item" is equivalent to "each return of the
debit item," the suit says.
On May 11, 2021, and May 7, 2021, Mr. Preston was charged NSF fees
in transactions described as "Returned Item Fee 3110020." Both such
fees were the results of resubmissions of a transaction that had
triggered an NSF fee on May 5, 2021.
The Plaintiffs and all members of the proposed Class have performed
all, or substantially all, of the obligations imposed on them under
the contract.
The Plaintiffs and all members of the proposed Class have sustained
damages as a result of Navy Federal's breach of contract and breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and are
entitled to monetary relief and injunctive relief to avoid further
damage which they and the members of the Class are threatened or at
risk of, the suit asserts.
Mr. Preston is a resident of Los Angeles, California and had a
checking account with Navy Federal at all times relevant to the
class action allegations. He patronized Defendant's branches in
California, received his Navy Federal account statements in
California, and initiated transactions on his Navy Federal account
within California.
Navy Federal is a federally chartered credit union.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Taras Kick, Esq.
Tyler J. Dosaj, Esq.
THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
815 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Telephone: (310) 395-2988
Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
Tyler@kicklawfirm.com
NEW ORIENTAL EDUCATION: Sued Over SEC Disclosures
-------------------------------------------------
New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. disclosed in its
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2024, that
beginning in February 2022, the company and certain of its officers
and directors were named as defendants in two related securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. In June 2022, these actions were
consolidated under the caption "In re New Oriental Education &
Technology Group Inc. Securities Litigation," No. 1:22-CV-01014.
On September 2, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed its amended consolidated
complaint purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
or acquired the company's American Depository Shares (ADS) between
October 23, 2018 and July 25, 2021, alleging that defendants'
statements contained alleged misstatements and omissions regarding
the company's business and compliance practices in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Consolidated
Complaint on December 9, 2022. The defendants' motion-to-dismiss
was fully briefed and argued as of May 2024. The court has yet to
rule on the motion.
New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. provides a wide
variety of educational programs, services and products and delivers
comprehensive educational programs, services and products to
students across China through nationwide physical network of
schools, learning centers and bookstores, as well as pure-play
online learning platforms.
NEXT LEVEL: Zuniga Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Evangelina Zuniga, on behalf of herself and current and former
aggrieved employees v. NEXT LEVEL STAFFING; SIMPLEHUMAN, LLC; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV20605 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 14, 2024), is brought under the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") as a result of the
Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.
The Defendants' violated of the Labor Code based on Defendants'
failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all
overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failure to
authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal
periods or pay meal period premium wages; failure to authorize or
permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay
rest period premium wages; statutory penalties for failure to
timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements; statutory waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position
at Defendants' location in Los Angeles County from May 2022 until
February 26, 2024.
NEXT LEVEL STAFFING is authorized to do business within the State
of California and is doing business in the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Esq.
Aleksandra Urban, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
jschwartz@lelawfirm.com
aurban@lelawfirm.com
NORTHERN TRUST: Class Certification Sched Order Revised
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANDLER EMERSON, v.
NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-TLT
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered an order
revising case management and scheduling order:
1. Trial Date: May 12, 2025
2. Final Pretrial Conference: April 10, 2025
3. Joint Pretrial Statement (Including March 27, 2025
Objections):
4. Last day to file dispositive motions: Dec. 16, 2024
Opposition: Jan. 28, 2025
Reply: Feb. 11, 2025
5. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Jan. 28, 2025
6. Class Certification:
Motion by: May 24, 2024
Opposition by: June 24, 2024
Reply by: July 15, 2024
Hearing on: Nov. 5, 2024
Northern Trust is an American financial services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jdhSnC at no extra
charge.[CC]
NUNA HARVEST: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Wheatley Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
HANNIBAL WHEATLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NUNA HARVEST LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07337 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 27, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate the their Website,
www.nunaharvest.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's Website around Sept. 19,
2024, as a result of a glowing recommendation by a close friend who
had been aware of Plaintiff's condition, and the potential benefits
and uses of marijuana and related products. Therefore, on this same
day, the Plaintiff accessed the Defendant's Website for the first
time with a sighted relative and was very impressed with the
companies thoroughness of each product sold online, detailing each
of its unique characteristics, the suit says.
However, despite the Websites apparent thoroughness and
transparency, the Plaintiff encountered significant accessibility
barriers that prevented him from fully utilizing its services, when
he attempted to access the site by himself to discover crucial
information regarding the presence of any contraindications. This
has not only limited his ability to make informed decisions but
also infringed on his rights as a consumer and individual with a
disability, the suit contends.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Wheatley is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using his computer.
Nuna Harvest offers convenient and discreet cannabis delivery
services.[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
NUORI INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Picon Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Nuori, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-07371 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
30, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.nuori.us, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons,
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has made an attempt to
complete a purchase on Nuori.us. She tried to purchase a toner on
June 17, 2024 but was unable to complete the purchase independently
because of the many access barriers on the Defendant's website.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Nuori's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Nuori offers natural skincare products, including cleansers,
moisturizers, serums, masks, and sun protection.[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
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT: Tensae Suit Transferred to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tsegai W. Tensae, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Old Dominion Freight
Line, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-03978 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 13,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-06943-SPG-JDE to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Contract Dispute.
Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. -- https://www.odfl.com/ -- is an
American regional, inter-regional and national less than truckload
shipping company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Geraci, Esq.
Michael D. Singer, Esq.
COHELAN KHOURY AND SINGER
605 C Street Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101-5305
Phone: (619) 595-3001
Fax: (619) 595-3000
Email: jgeraci@ckslaw.com
msinger@ckslaw.com
- and -
Marta Manus, Esq.
6309 Van Nuys Boulevard, Suite 111
Van Nuys, CA 91401
Phone: (323) 372-8835
Email: martamanus@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508
Phone: 310.820.8800
Facsimile: 310.820.8859
Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com
abeverlin@bakerlaw.com
ksakaue@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Transamerica Pyramid
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94111-2806
Phone: 415.659.2600
Facsimile: 415.659.2601
Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com
ONELIVE LLC: Stephenstills.com Inaccessible to Blind, Williams Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. ONELIVE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07351
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://stephenstills.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The suit says that the Plaintiff visited the Website in order to
purchase a Stephen Stills Classic Rock Guitar Hoodie. He attempted
to purchase the Hoodie but was allegedly unable to locate pricing
and was not able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken
links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's Website, which prevented him from doing so.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory
conditions present on the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory
conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation
and segregation, the suit asserts.
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.
Onelive is a direct-to-fan ecommerce partner to 1200+ global brands
across music, sports, entertainment and DTC industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
PACKER SHOES: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Gaspa Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA GASPA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PACKER SHOES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-09509 (D.N.J., Sept. 27, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.disabilitystatistics.org/acs/1, is not fully or
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Packer Shoes, Inc. is an online seller of footwear, boots, apparel,
t-shirts, sweaters, hats, home goods, shorts, outerwear, watches,
and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
PALO ALTO: Court Terminates Patterson Suit
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patterson v. Palo Alto,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02109 (D. Colo., Filed July 31,
2024), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying as moot Plaintiff's
motion to certify class.
-- All upcoming deadlines and settings are vacated.
-- The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this case.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Palo operates as a restaurant holding company.[CC]
PARACHUTE HOME: Faces Picon Suit Over Blind's Access to Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARACHUTE HOME, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07269 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.parachutehome.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inaccurate landmark
structure, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, unclear labels for
interactive elements, changing of content without advance warning,
ambiguous link texts, redundant links where adjacent links go to
the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Parachute Home, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
PAWN AMERICA: Fact Discovery in Thomas Suit Due Sept. 26, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA THOMAS, RANDELL
HUFF; MEGAN MURILLO, MONIQUE DERR, AND PAOLA MANZO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PAWN AMERICA
MINNESOTA, LLC; PAYDAY AMERICA, INC.; AND PAL CARD MINNESOTA, LLC
(re Pawn America Consumer Data Breach Litigation), Case No.
0:21-cv-02554-PJS-JFD (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge John Docherty
entered an order as follows:
-- Fact discovery shall be commenced in time to be completed on or
before Sept. 26, 2025.
-- The parties will respond to discovery demands within the time
limits in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and will
substantially complete document production on or before March
28,
2025.
-- The Plaintiffs shall disclose, in compliance with FRCP
26(a)(2),
the identity and report of all experts on whom Plaintiff
intends
to rely in connection with Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, on or before July 25, 2025
-- The Defendant shall disclose, in compliance with FRCP 26(a)(2),
all experts on whom Defendants intend to rely in connection
with
opposing Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, on or
before
Aug. 22, 2025.
-- All motions which seek to amend the pleadings or to add parties
must be filed and served on or before March 20, 2025.
-- Non-dispositive motions and supporting documents which relate
to
fact discovery or related matters shall be filed and served on
or
before Jan. 16, 2026.
-- Non-dispositive motions and supporting documents which relate
to
expert discovery shall be filed and served on or before May 15,
2026.
-- All dispositive motions (notice of motion, motion, memorandum
of
law, affidavits and proposed order) shall be served, filed and
heard on or before June 10, 2026.
-- This case shall be ready for a jury trial on Oct. 12, 2026.
Pawn America operates as a used merchandise store.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MB6nqt at no extra
charge.[CC]
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Link Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------
Gustave Link, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. F/K/A CENTENNIAL RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL
RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS
CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; and PIONEER NATURAL
RESOURCES COMPANY, Case No. 5:24-cv-05321-NC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 16,
2024), is brought arising from Defendants' conspiracy to
coordinate, and ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil
production, which has had the effect of fixing, raising, and
maintaining the price of retail gasoline (gasoline purchased by
consumers at gas stations) in and throughout the United States of
America.
The Defendants are among the largest Independents. Independents
traditionally act as "swing producers" for the global oil market,
with the ability to adjust shale oil production levels rapidly in
response to changes in market conditions and push, or "swing," the
price of crude oil. Gasoline demand, and thereby oil prices,
recovered and ultimately began increasing at a rapid rate in 2021.
The increase in the price of crude oil following COVID-19 was
exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February
2022, which led to sanctions that largely sequestered Russian oil
from the global market. This extended run of historically high
crude oil prices provided prime market conditions for agile swing
producers like Defendants – whose breakeven prices have never
been lower and who operate in regions with a wealth of profitable
opportunities - to aggressively increase production.
But Defendants did not take advantage of this market opportunity.
Rather, departing from their historical practice and rational
independent self-interest, each Defendant limited their domestic
shale production growth. Defendants' agreement to limit their
respective shale production volumes has had the effect of fixing
and/or stabilizing at an artificially high-level U.S. (and global)
crude oil prices, which in turn fixed and/or stabilized retail
gasoline prices in the United States at an artificially high
level.
The Defendants' cartel is a per se unlawful restraint of trade
under numerous state antitrust and competition laws. Plaintiff and
the Classes suffered substantial harm from the supracompetitive
prices they paid for retail gasoline for personal use as a direct
and proximate result of the cartel to constrain domestic production
of shale oil in the United States. They bring this suit to recover
that loss, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased retail gasoline on a regular basis in
California during the Class Period for personal use.
Permian Resources Corporation, known as Centennial Resource
Development is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Midland,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
PHARMACANN OF NEW YORK: Blind Can't Access Website, Wheatley Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HANNIBAL WHEATLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PHARMACANN OF NEW YORK, LLC d/b/a VERILIFE, Case No.
1:24-cv-07338 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2024) sues the Defendant for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the their
Website, www.verilife.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff discovered Defendant's Website around Sept. 19, 2024,
as a result of a glowing recommendation by a close friend who had
been aware of the Plaintiff's condition, and the potential benefits
and uses of marijuana and related products. Therefore, on this same
day, the Plaintiff accessed the Defendant's Website for the first
time with a sighted relative and was very impressed with the
companies thoroughness of each product sold online, detailing each
of its unique characteristics, the suit says.
However, despite the Websites apparent thoroughness and
transparency, the Plaintiff encountered significant accessibility
barriers that prevented him from fully utilizing its services, when
he attempted to access the site by himself to discover crucial
information regarding the presence of any contraindications
therein. This has not only limited his ability to make informed
decisions but also infringed on his rights as a consumer and
individual with a disability, the suit contends.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Verilife is a medical marijuana dispensary.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
PHE INC: Delong Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping Activities
--------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN DELONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05212
(E.D. Pa., Sept. 27, 2024) alleges violation of the Pennsylvania
Wiretap Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is
engaged in disclosure of communications regarding the Plaintiff's
private and protected sexual information along with his IP
addresses without his consent.
PHE, Inc. manufactures adult products. The Company provides a
diverse range of sexual wellnes products and sex toys in stores and
online, as well as produces films for sex education. PHE serves
customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 273-7117
Email: ykim@kimlf.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
COULSON P.C.
300 River Place Drive Suite 1700
Detroit, MI 48207
Tel: (313) 644-2685
Email: Nick@CoulsonPC.com
- and -
Don Bivens, Esq.
Teresita Mercado, Esq.
DON BIVENS, PLLC
15169 N. Scottsdale Rd, Suite 205
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Tel: (602) 708-1450
Email: don@donbivens.com
Teresita@donbivens.com
PURE HEALTH: Liable to Investors' Ponzi Scheme Losses, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXT GENERATION INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC and STEVEN ROMANOWSKI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PURE HEALTH ENTERPRISES, INC., THE ESTATE OF JASON
PAGE and LAURA LEVESQUE PAGE, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-06764-SK
(N.D. Cal., September 26, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for violation of California's Business and Professions
Code and breach of contract.
The case arises from a Ponzi scheme ran by Zachary Horwitz and the
Defendants' failure to engage a law firm until after the scheme
erupted, failure to engage an accounting firm, and failure to
undertake any due diligence steps that a reasonable investor would
expect. The Defendants knew or should have known that this proposed
investment opportunity was fake. Mr. Horwitz's scheme wouldn't have
been funded but for well-connected placement agents like the
Defendants. The Defendants parroted Mr. Horwitz's lies, cloaking
the scheme in their own credibility as experienced investors,
insisted that any communications with Mr. Horwitz go through them,
and sold the offering to their closest friends. As a result of the
Defendants' unfair and deceptive practices, the Plaintiffs have
suffered and will continue to suffer actual damages.
Next Generation Investment Group, LLC is an investment company
based in Nevada.
Pure Health Enterprises, Inc. is a healthcare services company in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rebecca E. Weissman, Esq.
LOFTUS & EISENBERG, LTD.
161 N. Clark, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 899-6625
Email: rebecca@loftusandeisenberg.com
QUANOVATE TECH INC: Moreno Sues Over Privacy Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Carla Moreno and Frances Mora, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. QUANOVATE TECH INC. d/b/a MIRA, Case
No. 3:24-cv-05262-LJC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2024), is brought to
remedy these harms and therefore assert the following statutory and
common law claims against Mira: Violation of Electronic
Communications Privacy Act; Unauthorized Interception, Use and
Disclosure; Negligence; Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act; Violation of Florida Security of Communications Act;
Unjust Enrichment and Violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.
The Defendant engages in the illegal and widespread practice of
disclosing Plaintiffs' and putative Class Members' confidential
personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI") (referred to herein collectively as "Private
Information") to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc.
d/b/a Meta ("Facebook") and Google LLC ("Google") without its
customers' knowledge or consent.
These companies—including Defendant—are facilitating their
surreptitious connection and disclosure of protected health and
other information by using invisible tracking tools, including
those popularly called "pixels." The Defendant's unlawful privacy
violations occurred and continue to occur because of the tracking
technologies that it installed on its website including, but not
limited to, the Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, Google DoubleClick
and Google Tag Manager (collectively, "Tracking Tools").
Invisible to the naked eye, each of the Pixels embedded on
Defendant's Website collects and transmits information from Users'
browsers to unauthorized third parties including, but not limited
to, Facebook, Google, and other third-party data brokers
(collectively, the "Pixel Information Recipients").
The Pixel Information Recipients, in turn, use Plaintiffs' and
Class Members' Private Information for business purposes, including
to improve advertisers' ability to target specific demographics and
selling such information to third-party marketers who target
Plaintiffs and Class Members online (i.e., through their Facebook,
Instagram, Gmail and other social media and personal accounts) with
targeted advertising related to the PHI they shared with companies
like Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Paso Robles, San Luis
Obispo County, in the State of California.
The Defendant is a self-proclaimed "mini hormone lab" that offers
both male and female customers at-home fertility testing and
monitoring using quantitative technology.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Phone: (312) 576-3024
RANGE RESOURCES: Court Adopts Modified Class Definition in Rupert
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES A. RUPERT, WILLIAM
E. TRAVIS, KAREN A. TRAVIS, and BRYAN MARTIN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RANGE RESOURCES
– APPALACHIA, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01281-PLD (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Patricia Dodge will grant Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
An appropriate order will follow.
The court found that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(3) are met and that the class is ascertainable.
The Court will adopt the following modified class definition:
"Persons and entities, including their respective successors
and
assigns, to whom Range, since Sept. 1, 2017, has paid royalties
on
the production of NGLs under oil and gas leases which the
lessee's
interests and obligations came to be owned by Range on or after
Oct. 13, 2010, and that preclude Range from deducting post-
production costs from its royalty calculation on natural gas,
NGLs, and related constituents in excess of $0.80, $0.75, or
$0.72
per MMBTU."
Excluded from the Class are: (1) Range, its current officers,
and
employees; and (2) any person whose royalty underpayment claim
against Range is subject to a binding arbitration provision.
The Plaintiffs James commenced this class action on Sept. 24,
2021.
On Nov. 29, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining
order or preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin Defendants from
issuing reimbursement payments for royalties owed to the Plaintiffs
and the putative class members.
On Feb. 3, 2023, the Court issued an Amended Case Management Order
setting forth various deadlines for discovery, expert disclosures,
and the filing of the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification.
Each of the Plaintiffs is a lessor under oil and gas agreements
entered into with Range.
Range is an operator of oil and natural gas wells across
southwestern Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f1B7G7
at no extra charge.[CC]
RANGE RESOURCES: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Rupert Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES A. RUPERT, WILLIAM
E. TRAVIS, KAREN A. TRAVIS, and BRYAN MARTIN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RANGE RESOURCES
– APPALACHIA, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01281-PLD (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Patricia Dodge entered an order granting Plaintiffs
James A. Rupert, William E. Travis, Karen A. Travis, and Bryan
Martin's motion for class certification.
The following class is certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
and 23(b)(3):
"Persons and entities, including their respective successors
and
assigns, to whom Range, since September 1, 2017, has paid
royalties on the production of NGLs under oil and gas leases
which
the lessee's interests and obligations came to be owned by
Range
on or after Oct. 13, 2010, and that preclude Range from
deducting
post-production costs from its royalty calculation on natural
gas,
NGLs, and related constituents in excess of $0.80, $0.75, or
$0.72
per MMBTU."
Excluded from the Class are: (1) Range, its current officers,
and
employees; and (2) any person whose royalty underpayment claim
against Range is subject to a binding arbitration provision.
Range is an operator of oil and natural gas wells across
southwestern Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lsBo7z at no extra
charge.[CC]
RB HEALTH (US) LLC: O'Dea Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lucinda O'Dea, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RB Health (US) LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02757 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 14, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07048-SB-BFM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
RB Health (US) LLC -- https://www.rbhealthpartners.com/ --
specialize in long-term care, clinical services, risk management,
operations, and Medicare compliance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 West Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 810-7047
Email: tkashima@milberg.com
- and -
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive Penthouse Suite
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: astraus@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
Russell Busch, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
rbusch@milberg.com
- and -
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (202) 640-1167
Email: hbryson@milberg.com
- and -
Luis Angel Cardona, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
1311 Ponce De Leon Avenue
San Juan, PR 00985
Phone: (516) 862-0194
Email: lcardona@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: (313) 303-3472
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR AND FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew J. Soukup, Esq.
COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 662-6000
Fax: (202) 662-6291
Email: asoukup@cov.com
- and -
Anthony Joseph Monaco, Esq.
SWANSON MARTIN AND BELL LLP
330 North Wabash Avenue Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 321-9100
Email: amonaco@smbtrials.com
- and -
Sonya D. Winner, Esq.
COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Phone: (415) 591-6000
Fax: (415) 955-6091
Email: swinner@cov.com
- and -
Zachary Reed Glasser, Esq.
COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (424) 332-4774
Fax: (424) 332-4749
Email: zglasser@cov.com
REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Filing for Class Cert Extended to Jan. 27, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.S. et al., v. Regence
BlueShield, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01609 (W.D. Wash., Filed Oct.
30, 2017), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order
granting stipulated motion for extension of time for the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification by Jan.
27, 2025.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC]
RENEWABLE INNOVATIONS: Melton Sues Over 29.2% Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD MELTON, WARREN KETTLEWELL, ALEX O. ALIKSANYAN, THOMAS
GRBELJA, VINCENT SPERO, AND WILLIAM MCLEOD v. RENEWABLE
INNOVATIONS, INC., RENEWABLE INNOVATIONS CORP., ROBERT L. MOUNT,
AND LYNN BARNEY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00716-DAO (D. Utah, Sept. 27,
2024) is a class action suit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a
class consisting of themselves and all other persons who purchased
any of Renewable Innovations' common stock (some represented by
depositary shares) on the open market on a U.S. stock, or through
private transactions during the period Dec. 1, 2022, through the
date in which Renewable Innovations' stock was delisted from all
trading platforms for failure to comply with the SEC filing
requirements on Sept. 14, 2023.
According to the complaint, at its peak in Dec. 2022, Renewable
Innovations' publicly traded stock traded at $2.50 per share with a
fully diluted total market capitalization value of approximately
$582,000,000. The Defendants failure to abide by the securities
filing requirements commenced on April 19, 2023, when Renewable
Innovations went 31 days without any filing. To try to put a
band-aid on their incompetence (or worse), the Defendants filed a
Form 8-K on June 1, 2023, which claimed a non-reliance on prior
filings. During those 31 days, the Company's stock dropped 29.2%
thereby erasing approximately $56,400,000 in market capitalization
and value, says the suit.
Contrary to these numerous and oft-issued public representations,
on Nov. 2, 2023, Renewable Innovations announced its Board of
Directors concluded that the Renewable Innovations' Financial
Statements for the three months ended Feb. 28, 2023, should no
longer be relied upon due to errors.
Over the weeks that followed the public announcement that Renewable
Innovations' financial statement should no longer be relied upon,
the Company’s stock lost 46% and approximately $65,000,000 in
market value. However, to date, Renewable Innovations never issued
restated financial statements and failed to follow any SEC
reporting guidelines which caused the Company to be delisted and
the Plaintiffs and all of the proposed class members have been
precluded from trading their stock.
In effect, the Plaintiffs and all shareholder investments have been
rendered worthless as a result of the acts complained of within
this lawsuit. In fact, on the last day of trading the Company stock
fell nearly thirty percent (30%). On its last day of trading,
approximately $75,000,000 in shareholder value was wiped out, the
suit alleges.
Renewable Innovations is a renewable energy company headquartered
in Lindon, Utah, and incorporated in Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON LEGAL SOLUTIONS
1887 N 270 E
Orem, UT 84057
Telephone: (801) 845-258
E-mail: matt@oremlawoffice.com
RESCUE SPA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Trippett Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rescue Spa New York, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-6882
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.rescuespa.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
On July 29, 2024, the Plaintiff wanted to book an appointment for
spa services. He searched for "spas in NYC" and found the
Defendant's website. However, while navigating the site, he
encountered numerous accessibility issues: navigation submenus were
not accessible via keyboard, ambiguous links and buttons, images
lacked alternative text. Plaintiff attempted to make an appointment
for the Brow Design service, but was unable to do so independently
due to the many access barriers on Defendant's website, the suit
alleges.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Rescue Spa New York's policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks
compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Rescue Spa specializes in spa services including facials
treatments, bodywork and massage, manicures and pedicures, brows,
lashes and makeup.[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
ROBLOX CORPORATION: Martin Sues Over Video Gaming Product Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Martin, and Heather Martin, as Guardian ad Litem and on
behalf of S.M., a minor, and those similarly situated v. ROBLOX
CORPORATION; MOJANG AB; MICROSOFT CORPORATION; APPLE, INC.; GOOGLE,
LLC; and the FIRST DOE through ONE HUNDREDTH DOE, inclusive, Case
No. 24STCV20820 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 16, 2024),
is brought for personal injuries against the Defendants to recover
damages, pursuant to and under the laws of the State of California,
arising from the severe injuries sustained by each because of
Plaintiff S.M.'s use of Defendants' video gaming products.
This action seeks to hold the DEFENDANTS accountable for causing
and contributing to a public health crisis, amounting to a global
epidemic, wherein minors suffer from addiction or disordered
compulsion to DEFENDANTS' addictive and unreasonably dangerous
gateway video gaming products. The products at issue consist of:
Roblox and Minecraft, including their patent-protected technologies
of addictive design features and the mechanisms systems, and/or
devices through which minors use, access, and consume these
products (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Products").
These Products are marketed as and serve as "gateway" video gaming
products for minors in that they serve to introduce minors to video
gaming and the addictive mechanisms found within DEFENDANTS'
Products. The addiction and/or disordered compulsion to using the
Products causes profound harm, triggering an extraordinary sequela
of catastrophic and life-altering injuries to users and their
families.
The Products are defective and unreasonably dangerous in that they
were specifically designed (whether negligently and/or
intentionally) to cause users, specifically minors, to become
psychologically addicted to using, or to develop a disordered
compulsion to using, video game products. DEFENDANTS failed to
provide any warning to users or their caregivers of the harm posed
by using the Products, resulting in extraordinary detriment to
users and their caregivers, including Plaintiffs herein, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs in this action are: HEATHER MARTIN and the parent of
Plaintiff S.M., a minor child.
Roblox Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in San Mateo, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dennis Reich, Esq.
Robert Binstock, Esq.
John Black, Esq.
REICH AND BINSTOCK, LLP
4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77539
Phone: 713-622-7271
Fax: 713-623-8724
Email: dreich@reichandbinstock.com
bbinstock@reichandbinstock.com
bblack@reichandbinstock.com
- and -
Richard Schechter, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD SCHECHTER PC
1 Greenway Plz #100
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: Tel: 713-623-8919
Fax: 713-622-1680
Email: richard@rs-law.com
ROCKET COMPANIES: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony in Shupe Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL SHUPE, and
CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., JAY FARNER, DANIEL GILBERT, and ROCKET
HOLDINGS, INC, Case No. 1:21-cv-11528-TLL-APP (E.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order:
-- denying Defendants' motion to exclude the expert testimony of
Chad
Coffman;
-- denying Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the expert testimony of
Dr.
Mark Garmaise;
-- denying Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the expert testimony of
Dr.
Rene Stulz;
-- denying Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the expert testimony of
Dr.
Laura Starks; and
-- denying Defendants' motion to strike Chad Coffman's rebuttal
Report.
This is not a final order and does not close the above-captioned
case.
The Plaintiffs Carl Shupe and Construction Laborers Pension Trust
for Southern California seek to certify a class of all individuals
who traded Rocket Companies, Inc. Class A common stock from Feb. 25
through May 5, 2021, alleging that the price of this stock was
artificially inflated and maintained by a series of fraudulent
misrepresentations made by Defendant Jay Farner.
Within this Class, the Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Subclass
of all individuals who traded Rocket Class A common stock
"contemporaneously" with Defendant Dan Gilbert's alleged insider
trade of the same security on March 29, 2021.
Rocket Companies is a Detroit-based fintech company consisting of
mortgage, real estate and financial service businesses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C6JSy1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROCKET COMPANIES: shupe Renewed Bid for Class Cert Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL SHUPE, and
CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., JAY FARNER, DANIEL GILBERT, and ROCKET
HOLDINGS, INC, Case No. 1:21-cv-11528-TLL-APP (E.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas Ludington entered an order:
-- denying the Defendants' motion for an evidentiary hearing; and
-- denying the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification.
This is not a final order and does not close the above-captioned
case.
Accordingly, both Shupe and SoCal present adequacy problems. Based
on a thorough review of the record, this Court concludes that
Plaintiff Shupe's credibility concerns render him an inadequate
Class representative.
In sum, although Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown commonality and
numerosity, Plaintiffs have not shown that common questions of
reliance predominate. Plaintiffs have not shown that a class action
is the superior method for adjudicating the claims of the putative
Class.
The Plaintiffs have not provided an ascertainable Subclass
definition. And Plaintiffs have not shown that their proposed Class
and Subclass representatives would adequately protect the interests
of the putative Class and Subclass members. Plaintiffs’ renewed
motion for class certification will accordingly be denied.
The Plaintiffs allege that the price of this stock was artificially
inflated and maintained by a series of fraudulent
misrepresentations made by the Defendant Jay Farner.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following Class:
"All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Rocket Companies, Inc. Class A common stock
(NYSE:
RKT) between Feb. 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, inclusive, and were
damaged thereby (the "Class")."
Excluded from the Class are: (a) Defendants; (b) members of the
immediate families of Defendants; (c) the subsidiaries and
affiliates of Defendant Rocket and Defendant RHI; (d) any
person
who is an officer, director, or controlling person of Rocket;
(e)
any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest;
and
(f) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of
any such excluded party.
The Plaintiffs also seek to certify the following Subclass:
"All persons and entities within the Class that purchased
publicly
traded Rocket Class A common stock contemporaneously with the
Defendant Gilbert's and Defendant RHI's sale of Rocket Class A
common stock on March 29, 2021 (the "Subclass")."
Excluded from the Subclass are: (a) Defendants; (b) members of
the
immediate families of Defendants; (c) the subsidiaries and
affiliates of Defendant Rocket and Defendant RHI; (d) any
person
who is an officer, director, or controlling person of Rocket;
(e)
any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest;
and
(f) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of
any such excluded party.
Rocket is a Detroit-based fintech company consisting of mortgage,
real estate and financial service businesses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vnBbLf at no extra
charge.[CC]
SABAL PALM: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. SABAL PALM ENTERPRISES, INC. and A
& R FOOD CHAIN INC d/b/a BRAVO SABAL SUPERMARKET aka KEY FOOD
SUPERMARKET, Case No. 1:24-cv-23725-KMW (S.D. Fla., Sept. 27, 2024)
is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 12181, et seq.,
the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201
and 2202.
The suit contends that the Defendants have discriminated against
the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and
equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property. The
Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in
violation of the ADA at the subject commercial plaza property and
supermarket, the suit says.
The barriers to access at the Defendants' commercial property and
commercial supermarket business has each denied or diminished the
Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and
supermarket and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access has likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff, and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff alleges.
Plaintiff Pardo is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a
residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui
juris. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined
by and pursuant to the ADA. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to
ambulate.
Sabal Palm Enterprises owns, operates and/or oversees the
Commercial Plaza Property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
SAM'S WEST: Dawar Sues Over Mislabeled Avocado Oil Product
----------------------------------------------------------
RAJAT DAWAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAM'S WEST, INC.; and SAM'S EAST, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09106 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 27, 2024)
alleges violation of the Illinois' Consumer Fraud Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
marketed, labeled, advertised, and sold its Olivari Avocado Oil
(the "Class Products") to consumers with packaging that prominently
and unequivocally represents that the oil is "100% Pure Avocado
Oil." The Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and lost money as a
result of Defendants' misleading, false, unfair, and deceptive
practices. Had the Plaintiff known that the Class Product was
adulterated with other oils and was not 100% pure avocado oil, he
would not have purchased it, or he would have paid less for it,
says the suit.
Sam's West Inc. provides merchandise and services for business
owners and consumers. The Company offers refrigeration equipment,
drink and beverage machines, small appliances, laundry appliances,
kitchen appliances, floor care products, commercial equipment, and
laundry care products. Sam's West also provides electronic
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
- and -
Joel D. Smith, Es.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PLLC
867 Boylston Street, 5 th Floor, Ste. 1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 377-7404
Email: joel@skclassactions.com
- and -
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PLLC
166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 839-7000
Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com
- and -
Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1550
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 536-2145
Email: tpeter@faruqilaw.com
SCHOOL MANAGEMENT: Svoboda Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometrics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Svoboda, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. School Management and Record Tracking, Inc.,
Case No. 2024LA000985 (Ill. 18th Judicial Dist., DuPage Cty., Aug.
12, 2024), against Defendant for its violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct by illegally
collecting and disseminating Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and
biometric information ("biometrics") without informed written
consent, and is understood to have done the same to countless other
similarly situated individuals.
Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted BIPA specifically to regulate companies
that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as
fingerprints.
Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of BIPA,
Defendant disregards the statutorily protected privacy rights of
Illinois citizens and unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates,
and uses their biometric information and biometric identifiers in
violation of BIPA. Specifically, Defendant violated and continues
to violate BIPA because it did not and continues not to: Properly
inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the
specific purpose and length of time for which their biometric
information or biometric identifiers were being collected, stored,
disseminated and used, as required by BIPA; and Receive a written
release from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to collect,
store, disseminate or otherwise use their biometric information or
biometric identifiers, as required by BIPA.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated to recover the statutory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs that BIPA authorizes for violations, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a student in DuPage County, Illinois, and was
required to scan her fingerprint using Defendant's Device to clock
in and out of class each day, so that Defendant and Plaintiff's
school could track her time.
The Defendant is a leading provider of biometric timekeeping
software to track students' attendance at school.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin W. Jaszczuk, Esq.
Margaret M. Schuchardt, Esq.
JASZCZUK P.C.
311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 442-0509
Email: mjaszczuk@jaszczuk.com
mschuchardt@jaszczuk.com
- and -
Matthew Peterson, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW ADVOCATE, PLLC
230 E. Ohio St., Suite 410
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (815) 999-9130
Email: mtp@lawsforconsumers.com
ST. LOUIS, MO: Cody Seeks Leave to File Narrower Class Definition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CODY, et al.,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals,
v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion
seeking leave to file a second renewed motion proposing narrower
class definition and for class certification.
The Plaintiffs submit this motion in accordance with Cody v. City
of St. Louis, 103 F.4th 523 (8th Cir. 2024), in which the Eighth
Circuit expressly reserved for this Court the decision to consider
further renewed motions for certification of the heat subclasses.
As further detailed in the Memorandum of Law in Support of
Plaintiffs' Motion Seeking Leave, the Plaintiffs seek to propose
more narrowly drawn class definitions of the heat subclasses and to
address the Eighth Circuit's concerns regarding Rule 23's
commonality and predominance requirements.
The Plaintiffs further request this Court grant an extension of
page limitations for the second renewed motion proposing narrower
class definition and for class certification to 32 pages as
Plaintiffs are providing the 'rigorous analysis' requested by the
Eighth Circuit.
St. Louis is an independent city in the U.S. state of Missouri. It
is located near the confluence of the Mississippi and the Missouri
rivers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ELuPX5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Blake A. Strode, Esq.
Jacki J. Langum, Esq.
Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq.
Maureen G. V. Hanlon, Esq.
Brianna Coppersmith, Esq.
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC.
440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390
Saint Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (855) 724-2489 ext. 1012
Facsimile: (314) 925-1307
E-mail: bstrode@archcitydefenders.org
jlangum@archcitydefenders.org
ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org
mhanlon@archcitydefenders.org
bcoppersmith@archcitydefenders.org
- and -
Dennis Kiker, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
2525 East Camelback Road, Ste 1000
Phoenix, AZ
Telephone: (480) 606-5100
Facsimile: (480) 606-5101
E-mail: dennis.kiker@dlapiper.com
STAKE CENTER: Class Cert Filing in Loonsfoot Extended to Nov. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loonsfoot v. Stake Center
Locating, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03171 (S.D. Ill., Filed Sept 21,
2023), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order granting
joint motion to extend deadline:
-- The deadline to move for class certification is extended to
Nov. 14, 2024. Defendant will then have 30 days to respond to
the motion.
-- Plaintiffs reply, if any and if permitted under the local
rules,
shall be filed within 21 days of Defendants response.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Stake Center provides utility locating services for gas, power,
communications, cable, and large fiber optic networks.[CC]
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Certification Bids OK'd Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE ACTOS END PAYOR ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:13-cv-09244-RA-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order granting the class
certifications motions in:
-- In re Actos End Payor Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-CV-9244
and
-- In re Actos Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
15-CV-
3278.
As to the former case, the following class is certified:
"All entities that, for consumption by their members, insureds,
or
beneficiaries, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or
all
of the purchase price of Actos or generic pioglitazone in the
[Class States], other than for resale, at any time from Jan.
17,
2011 through and until Dec. 31, 2015; and all individuals who
paid
for some or all of the purchase price of Actos in the [Class
States] at any time from Jan. 17, 2011 through and until Dec.
31,
2015."
The class excludes (1) Defendants and their subsidiaries and
affiliates; (2) federal and state governmental entities; (3)
judges assigned to this case and their chambers' staff and any
members of the judges' or chambers staff's immediate family;
(4)
Defendants' officers, directors, and employees; (5) individuals
who after Aug. 17, 2012 purchased only ACTOS and did not
purchase
generic pioglitazone; and (6) any "flat copay" consumers who
purchased ACTOS only via a fixed dollar copayment that does not
vary on the basis of the drug’s status as brand or generic.
As to the latter case, the following class is certified:
"All persons or entities in the United States and its
territories
and possessions, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who
purchased Actos or its AB-rated generic equivalent directly
from
Defendants or any generic manufacturer at any time on or after
Jan. 17, 2011 through Jan. 31, 2013."
The class excludes (1) Defendants and their officers,
directors,
management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; (2) all
governmental entities; (3) Drogueria Bayamon and Drogueria
Central; as well as (4) Belldina's Healthmart Pharmacy.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at
Docket Entries 584 and 586.
The Court thus finds Takeda's objections related to the DPPs'
motion meritless and otherwise finds no clear error in the relevant
portions of the Report.
In Nov. 2019, direct purchasers of Actos and its generics
("Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs" or "DPPs") filed their fourth
amended complaint, alleging that Takeda violated Section 2 of the
Sherman Act.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9pPBpb at no extra
charge.[CC]
THEORY LLC: Demaio Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls
------------------------------------------------------
Desiree Demaio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THEORY, LLC, Case No. CACE-24-011765 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Aug. 18, 2024), is brought for
injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of
the Caller ID Rules Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
("FTSA").
In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
are not capable of receiving telephone calls.
As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made
Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales
Calls").
Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted
Charming Charlie ("Theory Text Message Sales Calls") and violated
the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller
identification services a telephone number that was not capable of
receiving telephone calls, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls.
The Defendant which sells various goods to persons throughout the
country through its online store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
TSAROUHIS LAW: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Yoo Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNG YOO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. TSAROUHIS LAW GROUP,
LLC; AXIOM ACQUISITION VENTURES, LLC; Case No. 3:24-cv-05350-TJB
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Tonianne Bongiovanni entered an order as
follows:
-- Certification of a Settlement Class
The Court finds that, for settlement purposes only, all
requirements for class certification under Federal Rule
23(b)(3)
have been met in this case.
This provisional certification is made without prejudice to
Defendant's right to contest the appropriateness of class
certification should this Settlement not be finally approved by
the Court for any reason. The Settlement Class consists of:
"All New Jersey consumers who TSAROUHIS LAW on behalf of
AXIOM
ACQUISITION, between April 19, 2023 and April 19, 2024,
collected or attempted to collect a debt, which included
interest."
-- Conditional Approval
The Court conditionally approves the Settlement Agreement dated
August 30, 2024, 2024 and subject to any objections that may be
presented to the Court prior to the Settlement Hearing, finds
that
the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement are fair,
adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class;
and
Tsarouhis is a full-service collection law firm serving New Jersey
and Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qjl10h at no extra
charge.[CC]
TWITTER INC: Seeks Leave to File Instanter Sur-reply in Schobinger
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK SCHOBINGER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC. and
X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-03007-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask
the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file instanter
sur-reply to Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class
certification.
A Sur-Reply is warranted here because Plaintiff's Reply:
(1) improperly attempts to amend the class definition without
giving X a fair opportunity to respond or showing how his
revised putative class meets Rule 23's requirements, which
it
does not;
(2) falsely states that "Twitter does not state specifically
how
many employees who may be class members in this case signed
and did not sign arbitration agreements … [and] has not
provided sufficient evidence to defeat certification based
on
this ground in any event"– when in fact the Company
provided
precisely that information in its Opposition and the
supporting Declaration of Aoife Fenelon filed therewith;
and
(3) makes a new legal argument that the class waiver in the
Dispute Resolution Agreements ("DRAs") signed by over 95%
of
the putative class purportedly only bars bringing a class
claim but not "passively" participating as a class member
– a
claim that is legally wrong and that he lacks standing to
make
as a DRA opt-out.
The Defendant should be afforded an opportunity to address each of
the foregoing issues, and its Sur-Reply would be helpful to this
Court in ruling on the instant Motion. Filing the attached
Sur-Reply instanter also is important given the approaching October
3, 2024 hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion. A
On Aug. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class
certification.
On Sept. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his Reply in support of the
Motion.
Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging
service.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h0pclL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Meckley, Esq.
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
Ashlee N. Cherry, Esq.
Jonathan D. Lotsoff, Esq.
Kassia Stephenson, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
brian.berry@morganlewis.com
ashlee.cherry@morganlewis.com
kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com
jonathan.lotsoff@morganlewis.com
TYSON FOODS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH PEARSON, for herself
and all other similarly situated individuals, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.
Case No. 4:23-cv-01080-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order extending its time to respond to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification until Oct. 11, 2024.
After obtaining two unopposed extensions of time, the Plaintiff
filed her motion for class certification on Sept. 3, 2024.
After one previous unopposed extension of time, the Defendant's
deadline to respond is currently Oct. 1, 2024.
The Defendant's counsel continues to juggle multiple competing
obligations, including the previously noted grand jury subpoena
deadline (where production is continuing), several days of
depositions, deadlines in other cases, including deadlines that
cannot be extended (i.e., removal deadlines), and discovery matters
in this case. In addition, responding to the motion for class
certification is requiring coordination with possible affiants.
The Plaintiff's counsel does not object to the requested extension
of time.
Tyson is an American multinational corporation based in Springdale,
Arkansas that operates in the food industry.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E2Bll8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eva C. Madison, Esq.
Kyle D. Kennedy, Esq.
Curtis R. Summers, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
217 E. Dickson Street, Suite 204
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 582-6100
E-mail: emadison@littler.com
kkennedy@littler.com
csummers@littler.com
UNITED BANK: Davis and Ogletree Sue Over Alleged ERISA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUTH DAVIS and JIM OGLETREE, individually and on behalf of a class
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED BANK
CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:24-cv-00328-MTT (M.D. Ga., September 23, 2024) arises under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf certain participants in
and beneficiaries of the United Bank Corporation Employee Stock
Ownership Plan to remedy violations of ERISA arising out of the
forced liquidation of Plaintiffs' company stock in the Plan and the
sale of their stock in the Plan for less than fair market value.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek Plan-wide remedies and relief, on
behalf of the Class, seek to require Defendants to reinstate them
in the Plan, make good any losses resulting from their breaches of
fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions, to restore to the Plan
any profits made by the breaching fiduciaries through use of Plan
assets, and to obtain other appropriate equitable relief to redress
violations and enforce the provisions of the Plan and Title I of
ERISA.
United Bank Corporation Retirement Plan Committee is a Georgia
unincorporated association. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
Facsimile: (770) 227-6373
E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
BARTON & DOWNES LLP
1633 Connecticut Ave. NW., Ste. 200
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com
UNITED GROCERY WORKERS: Machuca Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alejo Machuca, and other similarly situated v. UNITED GROCERY
WORKERS, INC., a California corporation; AZALEA PARK, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV20849 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 16, 2024), is
brought pursuant to California Labor Code, the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") as a result of unpaid
compensations.
The Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they
were entitled for work performed and, as such, did not compensate
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all
hours worked at the minimum wage rate pursuant to California Labor
Code.
As a further result of their failure to provide Plaintiff and other
similarly situated aggrieved employees Code-compliant meal periods,
Defendants violated California Labor Code, because they failed to
compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees overtime compensation, even though they may have worked
more than 8 hours per day, 12 hours per day, and/or 40 hours per
week. Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees'
actual work hours entitled them to overtime compensation (daily
and/or weekly). However, they were not paid accurately and/or fully
for their overtime hours. Moreover, any incentive and/or bonus
payments were not included in calculating Plaintiff and others'
regular rate of pay for purposes of determining their correct
overtime rate of pay,, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants at OLA Restobar
beginning January 2023 and continuing through the time of his
termination on August 28, 2023.
United Grocery Workers, Inc. is a California corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arthur Sezgin, Esq.
Alisa Khousadian, Esq.
SEZGIN KHOUSADIAN LLP
500 North Central Avenue, Suite 830
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 696-1330
Fax: (818) 696-1331
Email: arthur@sklaw.legal
alisa@sklaw.legal
UNITED HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 27, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell v. United Health
Centers of the San Joaquin Valley, Case No. 1:23-cv-00060 (E.D.
Cal., Filed Jan. 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston
entered an order extending the deadline to file a motion for class
certification to Feb. 27, 2025.
Pursuant to the Court's order on Sept. 16, 2024, The parties
informed the Court on Sept. 27, 2024, that they have agreed to
mediation and have requested that the deadline to file a motion for
class certification be extended.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley is a private
non-profit organization, established from a grass root movement by
people trying to improve access to healthcare in their rural
communities in California's Central Valley.[CC]
UNITED SERVICES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Fitzpatrick Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE FITZPATRICK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION d/b/a USAA, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-01096 (W.D.
Tex., Sept. 27, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of
its customers.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information from a foreseeable
and preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves, says the suit.
United Services Automobile Association provides financial services.
The Company offers auto, life, flood, vehicle, business, health,
and condo, insurance services, as well as banking, investment, real
estate, retirement, financial planning, and mortgage services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
402 W Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
UNITED STATES: Discovery in Lewis Must Conclude by Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LEWIS, et al., v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02182-RCL
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce Lamberth entered a scheduling order
as follows:
-- The Defendants shall provide their initial disclosures on the
subject of class certification as required under Rule 26(a)(1)
o
or before Oct. 7, 2024;
-- Plaintiffs shall be limited to three depositions, 25
interrogatories, 25 request for admission, and a request for
production;
-- Discovery shall conclude on Dec. 31, 2024;
-- The deadline for joinder of parties and amendment of pleading
is
six weeks after the close of discovery; and
-- Plaintiffs shall file their renewed motion for class
certification
on or before six weeks after the close of discovery.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S1eUkB at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Valdez
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA VALDEZ, RICKY
ABEYTA, MARK FRANKLIN, MICHAEL CHILDS, KEATE WRIGHT, and ERIC
SHORT, v. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS OF VIRGINIA, LLC, d/b/a Estes
Dedicated, a Virginia limited liability company, Case No.
1:23-cv-01015-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip Brimmer
entered an order:
-- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration "Order"
denying
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
-- denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and
-- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as
to
Defendant's liability for willful violations of state overtime
and
rest break requirements.
Because plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that reconsideration
of the Court’s order denying class certification is necessary to
prevent manifest injustice, the Court will deny plaintiffs’
motion to reconsider.
On May 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs Angela Valdez, Ricky Abeyta, Mark
Franklin, and Michael Childs filed a motion for class
certification.
The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
March 13, 2024 because Plaintiffs' proposed class failed to meet
the numerosity requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)(1).
Universal operates a trucking business in the State of Colorado.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=psniVG at no extra
charge.[CC]
US DERMATOLOGY: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Roseberry Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Roseberry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. U.S. Dermatology Partners, Case No. 3:24-cv-02464-D
(N.D. Tex., Sept. 30, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information
of potentially millions of individuals.
In June of 2024, ransomware gang, BianLian, claimed responsibility
for accessing and acquiring 300 GB organization data, including
patients' personal data. As a result of the Data Breach, the
Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and
imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class
Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial
accounts to guard against identity theft, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff and Class Members may also incur out of pocket costs,
e.g., for purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes,
credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect
identity theft, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of all
those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' PII that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class.
Ms. Roseberry is a resident and citizen of Glendale, Arizona. She
is a customer and former patient of the Defendant.
US Dermatology offers medical, surgical, and cosmetic dermatology
services for all skin types.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Tanner R. Hilton, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
VF OUTDOOR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Bishop Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07397 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 30, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Sept. 25, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Superbreak Backpack
from the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the
Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person
and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public, the lawsuit alleges.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation,
the lawsuit asserts.
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.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
VF Outdoor manufactures of men's and boy's clothing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
VITALS CONSUMER: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMERA SWEETON, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VITALS CONSUMER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:23-CV-00088-BCW (W.D.
Mo.), the Hon. Judge Brian Wimes entered an order denying
Plaintiffs' motions for class certification.
The Plaintiffs' proposed Missouri and Kansas classes are not
sufficiently cohesive because the classes as defined include
potential class members who are not injured and lack standing, and
weeding out these class members would require individualized
determinations. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
denied based on standing and predominance.
The Plaintiffs' amended class action complaints allege two claims
against Defendants. In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege "Invasion of
Privacy – Appropriation of Name and Likeness." In Count II, the
Plaintiffs allege "Right of Publicity."
The Plaintiffs seek to certify both Missouri and Kansas classes
defined as follows:
The Missouri Class
"All natural persons who, during the time period Dec. 21, 2017,
to
the present, (a) maintained an office address in Missouri; (b)
appeared as a basic profile in the Vitals[WebMD Care] directory
on
the vitals.com [doctor.webmd.com] website and (c) did not claim
their profile. Excluded from the class are all judicial
officers
presiding over this or any related case."
The class definition also excludes all shareholders, officers
and
employees of Defendant.
The Kansas Class
"All natural persons who, during the time period Dec. 21, 2017,
to
the present, (a) maintained an office address in Kansas; (b)
appeared as a basic profile in the Vitals [WebMD Care]
directory
on the vitals.com [doctor.webmd.com] website and (c) did not
claim
their profile."
Excluded from the class are all judicial officers presiding
over
this or any related case. The class definition also excludes
all
shareholders, officers and employees of Defendant.
Ms. Sweeton is a licensed counselor located in Kansas, while Dr.
Moss is a chiropractor located in Missouri. Ms. Sweeton and Dr.
Moss have Basic profiles on the WebMD Care and/or Vitals
directories that have not been "claimed."
Vitals Consumer provides healthcare medical information solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8huQWP at no extra
charge.[CC]
VIVID SEATS: Donets Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Donets, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. VIVID SEATS LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 2024LA001004 (Ill. Judicial Cir. Ct.,
DuPage Cty., Aug. 16, 2024), is brought arising out of the
Defendant's unlawful collection, use, retention, disclosure, and
dissemination of the personal biometric identifiers and biometric
information of Plaintiff and the Class in violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA" or the "Act").
The Plaintiff never signed a written release or consent allowing
Defendant to collect or store fingerprints. Plaintiff has
continuously and repeatedly been exposed to the risks and harmful
conditions created by Defendant's violations of BIPA alleged
herein. Although BIPA was enacted in 2008, Defendant by its own
admission was using a biometric time clock approximately eight
years later (May 2016), including during Plaintiff's employment
with Defendant.
In other words, Defendant intended to and did over a substantial
period of time systematically collect and disseminate Plaintiff's
and the proposed Class's biometric data and information without
complying with BIPA, including dissemination to Paychex. Such
conduct is both negligent and reckless, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Illinois in 2014-2015 at
Defendant's Illinois call center.
The Defendant operates a ticket and event marketplace where tickets
to concerts, shows, and sporting events are marketed and sold to
consumers throughout the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wallace C. Solberg, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
DuPage County Firm ID: 11575
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Phone: (847) 368-1500
Email: wsolberg@andersonwanca.com
buslit@andersonwanca.com
- and -
Arthur C. Czaja, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR CZAJA
7521 N. Milwaukee Avenue
Niles, IL 60714
Phone: (847) 647-2106
Email: arthur@czajalawoffices.com
WALMART INC: Ivanoff Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA IVANOFF, et al., v.
WALMART INC., CL PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, LUMINEX HOME DECOR
AND FRAGRANCE COMPANY, LLC, AND CANDLE-LITE COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00896-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order
-- certifying the proposed Class and Subclasses
Nationwide Class:
"All persons and other entities who purchased Mainstays-branded
candles from Defendant Walmart Inc. or its subsidiaries in the
United States on or after March 15, 2015, and who meet the
definition of one or more of the following Subclasses:
(a) Subclass I:
Persons or other entities in the Nationwide Class who
purchased their Mainstays-branded candles in one or more of
the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New York,
North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming;
(b) Subclass II:
Persons or other entities in the Nationwide Class who
purchased their Mainstays-branded candles in one or more of
following states: Alaska, Arizona, District of Columbia,
Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio,
Oregon, and Tennessee;
(c) Subclass III:
Persons or other entities in the Nationwide Class who
purchased their Mainstays-branded in one or more of
following
states: Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey, and Utah
-- appointing the Plaintiffs to serve as Class representatives and
their counsel to serve as Class counsel, and
-- directing the Plaintiffs to submit a proposed notice plan.
The proposed Class and Subclasses also satisfy the predominance and
superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). The focus of Plaintiffs'
claims is that Defendants knew that Mainstays candles sold to
Plaintiffs and other Class Members were dangerous when used in the
ordinary manner, that Defendants had no reason to believe that
Plaintiffs and other Class Members would realize the candles were
dangerous, and, that Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs and other
Class Members a duty of care in selling, marketing, and producing
Mainstays candles.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' failure to implement
adequate warnings and develop and sell a defective product caused
them damage.
Walmart is in the business of selling and advertising for sale
certain merchandise or retail product in trade or commerce
throughout the nation, including, but not limited to, its Mainstays
house brand.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jCjMBI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
Gregory S. Reichenbach, Esq.
MCINNES LAW LLC
1900 W. 75th Street, Suite 220
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 220-2488
Facsimile: (913) 273-1671
E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com
greg@reichenbachlaw.com
- and -
A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
WADDELL LAW FIRM, LLC
9200 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 430
Corporate Woods Building 9
Overland Park, KS 66210
Telephone: (816) 399-5510
Facsimile: (913) 347-7333
E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com
- and -
Eric S. Playter, Esq.
PLAYTER TRIAL LAWYERS
7608 Raytown Road
Kansas City, MO 64138
Telephone: (816) 666-8902
Facsimile: (816) 666-8903
E-mail: eric@playter.com
WATERFORD COUNTRY: Ortega Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI & PII
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WATERFORD COUNTRY SCHOOL, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-01334-MPS (D. Conn., Aug. 20, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiffs and/or Class Members' protected health information and
personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's
information network, including, without limitation, Social Security
numbers, date of birth, LINK/Family ID numbers, medical
information, and health insurance information (these types of
information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to,
collectively, as "protected health information" or "PHI" and
"personally identifiable information" or "PII," collectively
"Private Information").
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it
caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and thousands of
other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable
cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on August 8, 2024
by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately
protected network and accessed the Private Information which was
being kept under-protected (the "Data Breach"). the Plaintiff
further seeks to hold Defendant responsible for not ensuring that
the Private Information was maintained in a manner consistent with
industry, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
of 1996 ("HIPAA").
While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as
October 5, 2023, the Data Breach occurred between September 17,
2023 and October 5, 2023. Defendant did not begin informing victims
of the Data Breach until August 8, 2024 and failed to inform
victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, the
Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach
until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it.
The Notice received by the Plaintiff was dated August 8, 2024.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Plaintiffs 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, the Plaintiffs 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 the Plaintiff and Class Members in
the future, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.
The Defendant is a school for children with special education needs
and families at risk.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank G. Usseglio, Esq.
KENNY, O'KEEFE USSEGLIO, P.C.
Capitol Place
21 Oak St., Suite 208
Hartford, CT 06106
Phone: (860) 246-2700
Email: fusseglio@kou-law.com
- and -
Laura Van Note, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th street, Suite 2100
Oakland, ca 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510 891-7030
Email: lvn@colevannote.com
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Nov. 22
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISA INGRAM, STEPHANIE
WILSON, and ROBERT REEVES, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, Case No.
5:20-cv-10288-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith Levy
entered an order extending discovery and class certification
deadlines, and setting briefing schedule for dispositive motions:
Date Event
Sept. 20, 2024 Defendant to Complete Production of Data in
Response to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests
for Production
Oct. 21, 2024 Deposition of Ali Berri
Nov. 1, 2024 Deposition of Charles Davis
Nov. 8, 2024 Plaintiffs to file Opposition to Wayne
County's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Nov. 12, 2024 Deposition of Cheryl Puckett
Nov. 22, 2024 Close of Class Certification and Fact
Discovery
Dec. 23, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs to File a Motion for
Class Certification
Jan. 31, 2025 Deadline for Defendants to File an Opposition
to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
Feb. 21, 2025 Deadline for Plaintiffs to File a Reply in
Support of Their Motion for Class
Certification
Wayne is situated in the heart of the Great Lakes region along the
Detroit River.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zwALPF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kirby Thomas West, Esq.
Christian Lansinger, Esq.
Michael B. Soyfer, Esq.
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
Telephone: (703) 682-9320
E-mail: kwest@ij.org
clansinger@ij.org
msoyfer@ij.org
- and -
Barton Morris Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BARTON MORRIS
520 North Main Street
Royal Oak, MI 48067
Telephone: (248) 541-2600
E-mail: barton@bartonmorris.com
The Defendant is represented by:
.
Theodore W. Seitz, Esq.
Nasseem S. Ramin, Esq.
Dykema Gossett PLLC
400 Renaissance Center
Detroit, MI 48243
Telephone: (313) 568-6800
E-mail: tseitz@dykema.com
nramin@dykema.com
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court Stays Bowles Suit
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONYA BOWLES, v. COUNTY OF
WAYNE BY ITS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Also known as CHARTER COUNTY
OF WAYNE BY ITS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-10973-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Linda Parker
entered an order:
-- granting Defendants' motion to stay; and
-- denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion to amend.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=swK1yk at no extra
charge.[CC]
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Plaintiffs Seek to Alter Final Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FADI ABI FAKHREDDINE and
OLD JOY INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC., v. ERIC R. SABREE, WAYNE COUNTY
TREASURER, a department of WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN, a Michigan
governmental subdivision, Case No. 2:21-cv-12250-SJM-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
Plaintiffs' motion to alter/amend the final judgment and dismissal
order and/or correct the mistake imposed by this Court in deciding
the affirmative defense of statute-of-limitations pursuant to Rules
59(e) and 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The prevention of manifest injustice and the notion of not
rewarding the breach of the duty of candor fully justifies relief
from the dismissal order and related judgment based upon the
mistake that flowed from this Court's lack of candid and full
information when making its decision.
Because this Court did not address or cite Beaver Street or its
instructive teaching of the ‘reasonable-degree-of-certainty’
standards, relief from issuance of a mistake-laced decision and
resulting erroneous judgment was rendered.
The Plaintiff Fakhreddine owned the real property known as 13526
Plymouth Road in Detroit.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Um96xv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip L. Ellison, Esq.
OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC
Hemlock, MI 48626
Telephone: (989) 642-0055
E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com
WE CATCH EM: Abramson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Abramson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. We Catch Em, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-06884 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 30, 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 the goods and
services FaceGym provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.mj2fishing.com (hereinafter "Mj2fishing.com" or "the
website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and 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, Mj2fishing.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 We Catch Em's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Mj2fishing.com is an online platform that provides fishing trips
and guided tours offered by Defendant in connection with its
physical locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: +1 347-941-471
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
WG3 LLC: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Jose Ricardo De Jesus Lopez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WG3, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, Case
No. 24STCV22027 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 28, 2024),
is brought as a result of the Defendants' failure to provide
compliant meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods,
failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay all overtime
owed, wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties in violation
of Unfair Competition Law and Private Attorneys General Act.
The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with compliant meal
breaks because Plaintiffs meal breaks were frequently interrupted
by managers and coworkers, interrupted meal break time was not
reinstated to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff was denied a meal break when
Defendant was short-staffed. Despite not being provided with
compliant meal breaks, Defendant did not pay premium pay for these
missed breaks at Plaintiffs regular rate of pay.
The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with compliant rest
breaks because Plaintiff was denied rest breaks on busy days and
when Defendant was short-staffed. Despite not being provided with
compliant rest breaks, Defendant did not pay premium pay for these
missed breaks at Plaintiffs regular rate of pay. The Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked because Plaintiff
performed approximately 10 minutes of work per day after clocking
out, such as taking out trash or completing other tasks requested
by Defendants, for which he was not compensated.
The Defendants failed to correctly calculate Plaintiff's regular
rate of pay, and as a result, underpaid Plaintiffs overtime.
Specifically, Defendants did not include all non-discretionary pay
that Plaintiff earned when calculating Plaintiffs regular rate of
pay. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage
statements because the wage statements issued to Plaintiff did not
accurately list total wages owed and hours worked, among other
things, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from August 31, 2022, to
September 4, 2023.
WG3, LLC is a California corporation with its principal place of
business located in Los Angeles County, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manny Starr, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 914-3433
Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
WHALECO INC: Favichia Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard Favichia, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. WHALECO, INC. d/b/a TEMU, Case No. 2:24-cv-02277-DJC-AC
(E.D. Cal., Aug. 21, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's
unsolicited text messaging.
To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant
engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message
consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations.
Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required
policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in
telemarketing.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion
upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and the Class members.
Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and
members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and a citizen and resident of
Sacramento County, California.
The Defendant is a Delaware Corporation with its headquarters
located in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN: Mendieta Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nelson Mendieta, as an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC., a
Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CIVSB2424979 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 30,
2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-02090.
The Complaint brings claims for alleged: Failure to Provide Meal
Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid
Sick Pay Wages; Inaccurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair
Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jared L. Palmer, Esq.
Carolyn B. Hall, Esq.
Ethan Lai, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-442-4810
Facsimile: 415-442-4870
Email: jared.palmer@ogletree.com
carolyn.hall@ogletree.com
ethan.lai@ogletree.com
WILSHIRE CONSTRUCTION: Carpenters-Contractors Sues Over Wages Owed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpenters-Contractors Cooperation Committee, Inc., a California
Nonprofit Corporation, on its own behalf and on behalf of wage
claimants v. WILSHIRE CONSTRUCTION, LP, a California Corporation, R
YOUNG ENTERPRISES, INC. dba ACCURATE ROOFING, a California
Corporation, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 24STCV21693 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 26, 2024), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage seeking wages owed.
This is action brought against the Defendants on the basis that
Wilshire's Subcontractor, R Young, failed to pay wages owed to
laborers on the construction project called 200 N Vermont located
at 200 N Vermont Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90004 ("Vermont" or
"Project".)
The Defendants owe unpaid wages including overtime wages to the
following individuals: Adolfo Cruz, David Lopez Cruz, Fernando
Gallegos Villa, Jesus Bonilla Hernandez, Mateo Bonilla Hernandez,
Oscar Gonzalez, Roberto Carlos Espinoza Cruz, and similarly
situated individuals ("Wage Claimants").
The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that,
at all times mentioned herein, Wage Claimants and all other
similarly situated individuals were formerly employed by R Young at
Project. During that statutory period, Defendants failed to
compensate Wage Claimants for all hours worked and failed to pay
them proper regular and overtime wages. As a result of these
violations, Wage Claimants were injured in the form of lost
compensation over the statutory period, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Carpenters-Contractors Cooperation Committee, Inc. is
a labor-management cooperation committee formed pursuant to the
Federal Labor Management Cooperation of 1978 ("LMCC").
Wilshire Construction, LP is a California Limited Partnership doing
business in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Desmond C. Lee, Esq.
Samantha B. Pastor, Esq.
SHANLEY APC
533 South Fremont Avenue, 9th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 488-4100
Fax: (213) 488-4180
Email: dlee@deconsel.com
spastor@shanleyapc.com
WIRELESS VISION: Cruz Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rolando Cruz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Wireless Vision Holdings LLC, Case No.
24STCV17142 was removed from the Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Aug. 19, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07027-AB-RAO to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Employment
Discrimination.
Wireless Vision, LLC -- https://wirelessvision.com/ -- currently
operates more than 450 T-Mobile-branded retail stores in 25
states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher L. Burrows, Esq.
BURROWS LAW FIRM, APC
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 526-9998
Fax: (424) 644-2446
Email: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com
- and -
Sean M. Novak, Esq.
NOVAK LAW FIRM PC
2609 North Sepulveda Boulevard
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Phone: (310) 921-8712
Fax: (310) 921-8732
Email: smn@novaklawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander Miller Chemers, Esq.
Carla Stephanie Espinoza, Esq.
Sage Stone, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
400 South Hope Street Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 239-9800
Fax: (213) 239-9045
Email: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com
carla.espinoza@ogletree.com
sage.stone@ogletree.com
WOODFIELD REGENCY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Payne Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE PAYNE v. WOODFIELD REGENCY, INC., Case No. 9:24-cv-81207
(S.D. Fla., Sept. 30, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
"Americans with Disabilities Act."
The lawsuit contends that the Defendant has discriminated against
the individual Plaintiff by denying her access to, and full and
equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property. The
individual Plaintiff visited the Commercial Property and businesses
located within the commercial property on Aug. 18, 2024, and
encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected
her ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property. She often
visits the Commercial Property in order to avail herself of the
goods and services offered there, and because it is approximately
23 miles from her residence and is near other businesses and
restaurants she frequents as a patron, the suit says.
The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses
within, have each denied or diminished the Plaintiff's ability to
visit the Commercial Property and have endangered her safety in
violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a
risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the
Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, alleges the suit.
Ms. Payne is an individual with disabilities as defined by and
pursuant to the ADA. She uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
Woodfield Regency owned and operated the commercial buildings
located at 3003 West Yamato Road, Boca Raton, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
aquezada@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
YAAD MAN THING: Allen Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Andrew Allen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. YAAD MAN THING LLC, KEMAR NELSON and JHENELL
NELSON, as individuals, Case No. 1:24-cv-06847 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27,
2024), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious
violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the
Defendants failure to pay overtime wages.
Although Plaintiff ROGER ANDREW ALLEN worked approximately 75 hours
or more hours per week from in or around December 2023 until
present, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours
worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to
post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in
a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required
by the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook and food
preparer.
YAAD MAN THING LLC, is a New York domestic limited liability
company organized under the laws of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
*********
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 ***