/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241009.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, October 9, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 203
Headlines
2200 RESTAURANT PARTNERS: Durham Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
3M COMPANY: Kimbrough Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Sensi Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Slivkoff Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Zangari Sues Over Injury Due to Asbestos
ABM AVIATION: Cocom Suit Removed to C.D. California
ADVANCED MULTIMODAL: Coburn Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
AFC CABLE SYSTEMS: Cruz Sues Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ALAN WILSON: Must File Class Cert Briefs in Misanin by Oct. 31
ALDI INC: Graham Files Suit in D. Maryland
ALUM FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Hendricks Suit Granted
AMAZON.COM INC: Allowed to Seal Certain Docs in Bid to Dismiss
AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Seal Certain Docs in GateGuard
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Incorrectly Calculate Annuities, Parisi Says
AMERICAN AIRLINES: White ADA Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
AMERICAN RESTAURANTS: Martin Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
ARDELYX INC: N.D. California Dismisses Strezsak Securities Suit
ASCEND FINANCE: Filing for Class Cert Objection Extended to Oct. 14
ASHTON WOODS USA: Frolo Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
AVIS RENT: Schachenman Sues Over Compromised Info of Customers
BANK OF AMERICA: Overcharges Military Members, Taylor Suit Alleges
BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Must File Class Cert Bid Nov. 8
BANTRY GROUP: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Robledo Suit
BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Class Settlement in Stewart Suit Gets Final Nod
BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE: Vargas Files Suit in S.D. New York
BCE-MACH LLC: Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
BH SECURITY: Robertson Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
BINANCE HOLDINGS: Martin's Bid to Serve Summons to Zhao Granted
BIOGEN INC: Manipulates Generic Competition, Teamsters Suit Says
BLUE ATLANTIC: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
BP PRODUCTS: White Suit Removed to C.D. California
BRT WEEKEND: Codner Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Bid for Class Cert. in Bryant Due Oct. 25
CARGILL MEAT: Court to Certify Class in Villa Lawsuit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Sweeps Customers' Cash Balances, Davis Suit Claims
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Pre-Motion Conference Sought in Sayles Suit
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Scheduled Trial in Loomis Adjourned
CITY HIVE: Pollitt Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
CMS INVESTMENT GROUP: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COASTAL TRUCKING: Martin Seeks Conditional Status of Action
COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Sotero Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
COMMUNITY CARE: Seeks to Decertify Beh Class Action
CONAGRA FOODS: Ruiz Suit Removed to E.D. California
CRITERION COLLECTION: Discloses Video Info to 3rd Party, Soto Says
CROWN NUT: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CYBERSOFT TECHNOLOGY: Myers Files Suit in C.D. California
D2C LLC: Bid for Conditional Case Schedule Amendment Tossed as Moot
D2C LLC: Martinez Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid
DANONE NORTH: Sued Over Failure to Provide Wage Statements
DARREN INDYKE: Bid to Compel Klein to Comply with Subpoena Tossed
DAVID TAX: Class Cert Filing in Iverson Extended to Jan. 15, 2025
DELTA HEALTH: Faces Saxton Suit Over Data Security Failures
DELTONA, FL: Court Certifies Class Definition in Anson Lawsuit
DETROIT, MI: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Class Certification
DOMINIC HEALTH: Bids to Restrict Documents in Boswell OK'd
EBERLY COMPANY: Adams Sues Over Failure to Maintain Elevators
EI DU PONT: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Dew
ELITE AUTO: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
ENROLL CONFIDENTLY: Darosa Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
EQUIFAX INC: Stolfat Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Plaintiffs' Bid for More Time to File Reply OK'd
EZELL EXCAVATING: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Oct. 10
FACEAPP INC: Bids to Compel Arbitration in Purchase Suit Granted
FLIGHTAWARE LLC: Stokar Files Suit in S.D. Texas
FOODLINER INC: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FRED MEYER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Shields Due August 11, 2025
FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Bid for Class Cert. in Sievertsen Due Oct. 25
FREMONT TRANS: Jean Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers
GABB WIRELESS: Senior Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
GEN DIGITAL: Bid for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Tossed
GENERAL MOTORS: Human Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
GEORGE ELECTRIC: Faces Avalos Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Ruiz and Wong Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Ruiz Sues Over False Advertisement
HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Partridge Suit Moved to Pierce County Super. Ct.
HERSHEY COMPANY: Nutrient Content Claims "False," Escobar Suit Says
HERTZ CORPORATION: Martin Sues Over Age Discrimination
HOMESITE GROUP: Underpays Customer Sales Reps, Sigler Suit Claims
HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Class of Students in Adavenaixx
I.C. SYSTEM: Fisher Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Consumer Debt
IHG MANAGEMENT: Martinez Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
ILLINOIS: Cross Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
IOVATE HEALTH: Schoonover Seeks Clarification of Class Cert. Order
JERICO PICTURES: Burroughs Files Suit in S.D. Florida
JERICO PICTURES: Schmalz Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
JP MORGAN: Court OK's Redactions of Class Certification Transcripts
JRS SERVICE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 15
JRSK INC: Faces Cantwell Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
KEMPER SPORTS: Davila Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
KLN ENTERPRISES: S.D. California Dismisses Trammell Consumer Suit
LEGACY TOUCH: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Weiner Suit
LLR INC: Van Seeks Leave to Alter Prior Class Certification
LYFT INC: Lowell Class Complaint Dismissed w/ Prejudice
MANIPAL EDUCATION: Class Settlement in Cherian Gets Initial Nod
MARS WRIGLEY: Frias Seeks to Certify Class of New York Purchasers
MDL 2873: Ross Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
MILLESIMA USA: Pollitt Sues Over Website's Accessibility Barriers
MMS GROUP: Bid to Certify Class Assigned to Magistrate Judge
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Austin Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Halvorson Sues Unlawful Disclosure of PII & PHI
MORGAN COUNTY, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Downs
MOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 1, 2025
NAPLES RESTAURANT: Davis Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
NECTAR INTERNATIONAL: Heikes Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
NEW YORK CITY: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Johns v. TLC
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Bid for More Time to File Reply Brief Granted
NEW YORK, NY: Fact Discovery in Dorce Suit Due Nov. 15
NMS GROUP: Seeks to Revise Court's Class Cert Briefing Schedule
NORDIC KNOTS: Hernandez Sues Over Website's Barriers to Blind Users
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: Discloses Info to 3rd Parties, Suit Claims
O'REILLY AUTO: Pipich Seeks Approval of Settlement
OARS AND ALPS: Battle Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Roper Suit
ONEAZ CREDIT UNION: Aguilar Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination
ORANGEBURG COUNTY, SC: Agrow Bid for Conditional Cert Partly OK'd
PARAGON 28: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Ellington Alleges
PARKING MANAGEMENT: Pierre Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PAYCOR INC: Case Management Order Entered in Johns Class Suit
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Bokma Claims
PIQ-SOH LLC: Cantwell Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Crowder Suit Removed to C.D. California
PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Ward Suit Says
PVH CORP: Visually Impaired Can't Access Online Store, Dalton Says
R & G MASULLO: Alvarenga Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Vines Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina
RICHARD LONINGER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Vega Alleges
RUG COMPANY: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Hernandez Says
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS: Barnett Suit Removed to C.D. California
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Unger Suit Over Defective Steam Ranges
SIDECAR DOUGHNUTS: Buckley Sues Over Noncompliance of Civil Code
SNOWFLAKE INC: Fordham Files Suit in D. Montana
STERIS CORP: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Radic by Nov. 15
STERIS CORP: Radic Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
STREETTEAM SOFTWARE: Ulmer Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclass
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Seeks Oral Argument on Decertification Bid
TEDG LLC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Robles Suit Alleges
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Ryan Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
TIMES INTERNET: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Kishore Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Murphy Suit
TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Mitchell Seeks to Modify Class Cert Sched Order
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Smith Suit Over Avocado Oil's Deceptive Labels
TRAVEL RESORTS: Chapman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
TULE LAKE LENDING: Crawford Sues Over Usurious Lending Practices
UNITED HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 27, 2025
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Summary Judgment Bids in Amy G. Suit Partly OK'd
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Burton Class Action
VANTAGE SUPPORTED: Green Must File Class Cert Bid by June 15, 2025
VERISOURCE SERVICES: Wagner Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
VOORHEES TOWNSHIP: Deferro Sues Over Unlawful Registration Fees
WALMART INC: Class Settlement in Haro Suit Gets Final Nod
WALMART INC: Ivanoff Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class, Subclasses
WEBMD, LLC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Cert. Tossed
WEST COAST WOUND: Lambert Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
WILLIAM WARREN GROUP: Cosby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WYNDHAM VACATION: Kirchner Appeals Denied Motion to Certify Class
YOUNG LIVING: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
YOUR HOMETOWN: Clardy Plaintiffs Win Conditional Certification Bid
*********
2200 RESTAURANT PARTNERS: Durham Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Durham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 2200 RESTAURANT PARTNERS, d/b/a DUNE BY LAURENT
TOURONDEL, Case No. CACE-24-011824 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct.,
Broward Cty., Aug. 20, 2024), is brought under the Florida Minimum
Wage Act ("FMWA") and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for
damages and demand for jury trial against Defendant for failure to
pay minimum wages.
When Defendant hires Bartenders and Barbacks, it credits a portion
of Bartenders and Barbacks, tips toward its minimum wage
obligations, and, consequently, it pays Bartenders and Barbacks
below the applicable state minimum wage. Nevertheless, Defendant
fails to provide such Bartenders and Barbacks the required and
sufficient notice of the tip credit under Florida law.
During all times material hereto, Defendant did not: provide the
full statutorily required tip notice under Florida law; pay the
applicable Florida minimum wage; or track the time Bartenders and
Barbacks spent performing side work and non-tipped duties. The
Plaintiff and the Tip Notice Class members are entitled to recover
at least the Florida minimum wage for each hour spent performing
work, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Bartender.
The Defendant was a foreign limited liability company registered in
the State of Florida and operating and transacting business within
Broward County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Michael V. Miller, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 Southeast 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (954) 871-0050
Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
3M COMPANY: Kimbrough Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Kimbrough, 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-04753-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 30, 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 Kidney Cancer 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: Sensi Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Sensi, individually and as personal representative for
Decedent, Joe Sandoval, 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-04514-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 Testicular Cancer 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: Slivkoff Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Slivkoff, individually and as personal representative for
Decedent, Joe Sandoval, 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-04515-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, Hypothyroidism, and
Testicular Cancer 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: Zangari Sues Over Injury Due to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------
Howard Zangari, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY; 4520
CORP., INC.; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, BUFFALO PUMPS DIVISION; AMERON INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION; AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION; ANCHOR/DARLING VALVE
COMPANY; ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AURORA PUMP COMPANY;
BARNSTEAD THERMOLYNE LLC; BECHTEL CORPORATION; BECKMAN COULTER,
INC.; BLACKMER PUMP COMPANY; BW/IP, INC.; CALAVERAS ASBESTOS, LTD.;
CECO ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.; CHEVRON CORPORATION STANDARD OIL; CHEVRON
U.S.A., INC.; CLARK-RELIANCE, successor-in-interest to JERGUSON
GAGE & VALVE COMPANY; CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.; COMPUDYNE CORPORATION;
COPES VULCAN, INC.; CSC SCIENTIFIC COMPANY, INC.; DEZURIK, INC.;
FAMILIAN CORP.; FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.; FISHER SCIENTIFIC
COMPANY LLC; FLOWSERVE CORPORATION f/k/a The Duriron Company, Inc.;
FLUOR CORPORATION; FMC CORPORATION, on behalf of its former
Northern Pump Company and Peerless Pump; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY
CORPORATION; G. DENVER AND CO., LLC; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY;
GOODRICH CORPORATION; GORMAN-RUPP COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS (IPG) LLC;
GREENE, TWEED & CO., INC.; GRINNELL LLC; HERCULES, LLC; HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL INC.; HP INC.; IBM, LLC; IMO INDUSTRIES LLC; ITT LLC;
JENKINS BROS.; J.T. THORPE & SON, INC.; KAISER GYPSUM, INC.; KEENAN
PROPERTIES, INC.; KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION; LINDBERG;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; MICROSOFT CORPORATION;
MILWAUKEE VALVE COMPANY, LLC; MW CUSTOM PAPERS, LLC;
NELES-JAMESBURY, INC.; OSCAR E. ERICKSON, INC.; PARAMOUNT GLOBAL,
f/k/a ViacomCBS INC., f/k/a CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, f/k/a VIACOM, INC., successor-by-merger to CBS
CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE
ELECTRIC CORPORATION; P.E. O'HAIR & CO.; PFIZER INC.; REDCO
CORPORATION, f/k/a CRANE CO.; RILEY POWER INC.; SANTA FE BRAUN
INC.; SIGMA-ALDRICH CO. LLC; SOCO WEST, INC.; SPIRAX SARCO, INC.;
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY;
THE WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY; THOMAS SCIENTIFIC, LLC; UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION; VALVES and CONTROLS US, INC. f/k/a WEIR VALVES &
CONTROLS USA, INC. f/k/a ATWOOD & MORRILL CO., INC.; VELAN VALVE
CORP.; WARREN PUMPS LLC; And DOES 1-350, inclusive, Case No.
24CV089581 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug. 28, 2024), is
brought for personal injury due to asbestos (negligence; strict
liability; premises owner/contractor liability; negligence civil
code section 1714; concert of action against metropolitan life
insurance company).
The Defendants were and are engaged in the business of researching,
manufacturing, fabricating, designing, modifying, labeling,
assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale,
supplying, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting
for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding,
manufacturing for others, packaging, and advertising a certain
substance, the generic name of which is asbestos, and products and
equipment containing asbestos.
The Defendants, singularly and jointly, negligently and carelessly
researched, manufactured, fabricated, designed, modified, tested or
failed to test, abated or failed to abate, warned or failed to warn
of the health hazards, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased,
bought, offered for sale, supplied, sold, inspected, serviced,
installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed,
warranted, re branded, manufactured for others, packaged and
advertised asbestos and asbestos-containing products and equipment,
in that asbestos proximately caused personal injuries to users,
consumers, workers, bystanders, and others (collectively "Exposed
Persons,") including Howard Zangari, while being used in a manner
that was reasonably foreseeable, thereby rendering asbestos and
asbestos-containing products and equipment unsafe and dangerous for
use.
The Plaintiff disclaims any cause of action or recovery for
injuries caused by exposure to asbestos dust that occurred in a
federal enclave. Plaintiff also disclaims any cause of action or
recovery for injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos dust
caused by acts or omissions committed at the direction of an
officer of the United States government, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff suffers from mesothelioma, caused by exposure to
asbestos from asbestos-containing products, materials, components,
and equipment.
The Defendants were individuals, corporations, partnerships and/or
unincorporated associations organized and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George H. Kim, Esq.
KARST & von OISTE, LLP
9766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-1820
Phone: (310) 746-4099
Facsimile: (310) 861-0525
- and -
Robert D. Woodward, Esq.
FLINT COOPER COHN THOMPSON & MIRACLE LLC
222 East Park St., Suite 500
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone (618) 288-4777
Facsimile (618) 288-2864
ABM AVIATION: Cocom Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Cocom, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. ABM AVIATION, INC., and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV21959 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 Sept. 30, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08389.
The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against ABM on
behalf of himself and the putative class: Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal
Periods; Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon
Separation of Employment; and Violation of Business and Professions
Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Laura Fleming, Esq.
Sean A. O'Brien, Esq.
Brian R Shaw, Esq.
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 851-1100
Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
Email: lf@paynefears.com
sao@paynefears.com
brs@paynefears.com
ADVANCED MULTIMODAL: Coburn Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevon Emmanuel Coburn, an individual; and other similarly situated
v. ADVANCED MULTIMODAL DISTRIBUTION INC., a California Corporation;
FREDY SALVADOR FUNES, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive; Case No. 24STCV20823 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Aug. 16, 2024), is brought under the Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") for unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff alleges that during the time of his employment, these
Defendants acted negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally to
routinely deprive Plaintiff of statutorily mandated rest breaks
during work shifts of 4 hours or greater. Defendants also
intentionally failed to compensate Plaintiff for those missed rest
breaks over the entire period of her employment with Defendants.
The Plaintiff was not properly compensated for his over-time hours
and Defendants failed to keep accurate records Of Plaintiffs
overtime hours and compensation. The Defendants, and each of them,
violated other provisions of the laws of the State of California,
including Employment Laws and Regulations which provide for a civil
penalty to be assessed and collected by the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency or its various departments, divisions,
commissions, boards, agencies, or employees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants.
ADVANCED MULTIMODAL DISTRIBUTION INC., is doing business as
"PREFERRED CARRIER OF CALIFORNIA", is a transportation company
operating in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarkis Sinnabekian, Esq.
SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 549
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: (818) 473-5003
Facsimile: (818)476-5619
Email: contact@slawla.com
AFC CABLE SYSTEMS: Cruz Sues Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Hector Serrano Cruz, as an aggrieved employee, on behalf of all
aggrieved employees v. AFC CABLE SYSTEMS, INC.; ATKORE
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ATKORE RMCP, INC.; ATKORE PLASTIC PIPE
CORPORATION; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVB2426394
(Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 27, 2024), is brought pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as a result of the
Defendants failure to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was non-exempt employees covered by Labor Code 510
and one or more IWC Wage Orders. On multiple occasions throughout
the relevant time period, the Plaintiff worked overtime by working
in excess of 8 hours in one workday, and/or in excess of 40 hours
in any one workweek, and/or working on the seventh day of work in
any one workweek. Despite working overtime hours, the Plaintiff was
not compensated at the rate of at least one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked. Further, on
multiple occasions throughout the relevant time period, the
Plaintiff worked in excess of 12 hours in one day and/or in excess
of 8 hours on the seventh day of work in any one workweek, and were
not compensated at the rate of at least twice the regular rate of
pay for these hours worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as an operator by the Defendants.
AFC CABLE SYSTEMS, INC. is a corporation, existing, doing business,
and employing individuals in the County of San Bernardino, State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Elkin, Esq.
Benjamin McLain, Esq. (SBN 340091)
ELKIN I GAMBOA, LLP
4119 W. Burbank Blvd., suite 110
Burbank, CA 911005
Phone: 323.372.1202
Facsimile: 323.372.1216
Email: michael@elkingamboa.com
ben@elkingamboa.com
- and -
David D. Bibiyan (Cal. Bar No. 287811)
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 4385555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
ALAN WILSON: Must File Class Cert Briefs in Misanin by Oct. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STERLING MISANIN, et al.,
v. ALAN WILSON, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of
South Carolina, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04734-RMG (D.S.C.), the
Hon. Judge Richard Gergel entered a scheduling order to resolve the
Plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and class
certification:
-- Defendants will file their briefs in opposition to the
Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and motion for preliminary
injunction on Oct. 31, 2024.
-- Defendants will file a responsive pleading to the Plaintiffs'
complaint on Nov. 15, 2024.
-- The Plaintiffs will file their reply briefs in support of their
motion for class certification and motion for a preliminary
injunction on Nov. 18, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O5wEnu at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALDI INC: Graham Files Suit in D. Maryland
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALDI, Inc. The case
is styled as Karley Graham, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated individuals v. ALDI, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02818-RDB (D. Md., Sept. 30, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Deceptive Trade
Practices.
ALDI Inc. -- https://www.aldi.us/ -- operates as a supermarket. The
Company offers groceries, meat, fresh produce, wine, beer,
beverages, and other home products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amanda Fox Perry, Esq.
FOX MCKENNA PLLC
14 Ridge Square NW
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (216) 965-5143
Email: amanda@foxmckenna.com
ALUM FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Hendricks Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled KATHARINE H. HENDRICKS, Plaintiff v. ALUM
FINANCIAL, LLC, and DEBT PAY PRO, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00798-MV-JFR (D.N.M.), Judge Martha Vazquez of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico grants Debt Pay,
Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
Ms. Hendricks, who was struggling with student loan debt, was
eligible for loan payment forgiveness under a federal program by
virtue of her work as a mental health care professional employed by
a nonprofit organization serving Native American communities in
Northern New Mexico. She submitted her application to the
Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program by fax to the United States
Department of Education.
Shortly thereafter, she began receiving voicemail messages from
Defendant Alum Financial LLC, a California company engaged in the
business of student loan debt. The messages indicated that Ms.
Hendricks was eligible for "the program," but that her application
was incomplete, and that she needed to complete the process in a
timely manner, as eligibility was on "a first come first served"
basis.
Ms. Hendricks returned one of the calls, and spoke with an employee
of Alum, who represented that Alum was the agency that people must
work through to qualify for these loan consolidation programs. She
believed that she had to work with Alum to obtain the debt relief
that she was seeking. Alum offered her a contract, which included a
payment plan. When she asked about the payment plan, Alum led her
to believe that the plan was for her student loan payments under
the consolidation program.
In fact, Alum is not an agency that applicants must use to qualify
for federal student loan consolidation programs, nor was the
payment plan offered to Ms. Hendricks a student loan payment plan;
rather, it was a plan for payment of Alum's own fees. Further, the
contract that Alum offered to Ms. Hendricks was not related to any
specific debt relief program for which Ms. Hendricks qualified, but
rather was a contract for services that Alum claims will find all
the programs for which a person qualifies and help determine the
best option for that person.
Alum collected fees from Ms. Hendricks, pursuant to the payment
plan for which it had contracted with her, before providing any
benefit to her, and before she was even enrolled in a qualified
loan consolidation and forgiveness plan. Despite the language in
the contract, Alum keeps all of the funds paid to it by consumers
and no portion of these payments are used to make monthly payments
on the student loan or loans.
Alum does not maintain its own customer records, but instead relies
on Defendant Debt Pay Pro, a corporation that provides services to
debt relief organizations, to track its customers, its leads, and
to otherwise assist it in providing debt relief services to
residents of New Mexico, including assisting with payment
processing and lead generation.
Debt Pay Pro "knowingly provides this assistance in exchange for
payment." Debt Pay Pro also provides similar assistance to "some
10,804 users from 2015 companies in offering debt adjustment
services to consumers." Without the services provided by Debt Pay
Pro, Alum "and these other companies" would not be able to provide
debt adjustment services to New Mexico residents.
According to Ms. Hendricks, the services provided by Alum run afoul
of the New Mexico statutory provision that makes it unlawful to act
as a "debt adjuster." Acting or offering to act as a debt adjuster
in New Mexico is a misdemeanor. The attorney general may bring an
action to enjoin a person from acting or offering to act as a debt
adjuster.
There is, however, no statutory provision allowing for a private
right of action against a person, who acts or offers to act as a
debt adjuster. Based on the allegations outlined here, in the
Second Amended Complaint, Ms. Hendricks sets forth three claims for
relief: one claim against both Alum and Debt Pay Pro for violation
of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act ("UPA"); one claim against
both Alum and Debt Pay Pro for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"); and one claim against Debt Pay Pro alone
for violation of the UPA.
Debt Pay Pro filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state the
three claims against it, along with a brief in support. In her
response brief, Ms. Hendricks concedes that she cannot state a
claim under the TCPA against Debt Pay Pro and agrees to dismissal
of that claim as against Debt Pay Pro. Ms. Hendricks argues,
however, that her UPA claims against Debt Pay Pro are viable. Debt
Pay Pro's request for dismissal of the two UPA claims as asserted
against it is now before the Court.
As an initial matter, Debt Pay Pro argues that Ms. Hendricks's
claim fails because her allegations are insufficient to demonstrate
that Alum unlawfully acted as a debt adjuster in the first
instance.
Assuming arguendo that the Plaintiff's allegations, if proven,
would establish that Alum breached its duties under the relevant
provisions of the UPA, thus, satisfying the first element of aiding
and abetting liability, Judge Vazquez finds that the Second Amended
Complaint is nonetheless devoid of factual allegations that, if
proven, would establish the third element of aiding and abetting
liability, namely that Debt Pay Pro "intentionally provided
substantial assistance or encouragement" to Alum in connection with
the false and misleading representations that Alum made to Ms.
Hendricks, or in connection with conceiving, negotiating, or
executing the terms of the unconscionable contract between Alum and
Ms. Hendricks.
Ms. Hendricks alleges in conclusory fashion that Debt Pay Pro
"provided substantial assistance and aided and abetted in the
violation of the UPA" committed by Alum and other unidentified debt
adjusters, Judge Vazquez notes. But beyond this conclusory
allegation, Judge Vazquez points out that Ms. Hendricks does not
allege any facts from which the reasonable inference can be drawn
that Debt Pay Pro assisted or encouraged Alum in the conduct she
identified as unfair, deceptive, and/or unconscionable trade
practices.
In other words, while Ms. Hendricks alleges that Debt Pay Pro knew
of Alum's unlawful operations but nonetheless knowingly provided
assistance in exchange for payment, Judge Vazquez says she does not
equally allege that Debt Pay Pro knew of Alum's UPA violations, or
that Debt Pay Pro provided substantial assistance or encouragement
to Alum (or any other entity) in any UPA-breaching conduct.
Accordingly, Ms. Hendricks's allegations, if proven, would fail to
establish the third element of aiding and abetting liability and,
for this reason, fail to state a claim against Debt Pay Pro for
violating the UPA. Ms. Hendricks's two UPA claims, thus, must be
dismissed as against Debt Pay Pro.
Ms. Hendricks consents to dismissal of her TCPA claim against Debt
Pay Pro, Judge Vazquez notes. For the reasons set forth here, Ms.
Hendricks has failed to state a claim under the UPA against Debt
Pay Pro. Accordingly, Ms. Hendricks's TCPA and UPA claims, to the
extent that they are alleged against Debt Pay Pro, must be
dismissed.
The Court grants Debt Pay, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint as follows: the Second Amended Complaint is
dismissed as to Debt Pay Pro.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Sept. 12, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5yn6dtzj from
PacerMonitor.com.
AMAZON.COM INC: Allowed to Seal Certain Docs in Bid to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GateGuard, Inc. v.
Amazon.com Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-09321-JGK-VF (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge John Koeltl entered an order granting the
letter-motion to seal the following documents in its forthcoming
motion to dismiss, to deny class certification, and to strike class
claims.
First, Amazon requests permission to file seven documents produced
by Plaintiff GateGuard—namely, Exhibits 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22,
and 23 to the accompanying declaration of David P.
Salant—provisionally under seal. Amazon does not believe any of
these documents must be permanently filed under seal.
On Sept. 30, 2024, the parties conferred via email and GateGuard
asserted that these documents contain GateGuard's confidential
information.
Accordingly, Amazon is filing these documents under seal in the
first instance, so that GateGuard may have an opportunity to move
for permanent sealing. For the same reason, Amazon requests leave
to redact quotations of these documents from the publicly docketed
versions of its memorandum of law and supporting declaration.
Second, Amazon requests permission for permanent sealing of
Exhibits 3 and 10 to the Salant Declaration. These documents were
previously filed under seal at ECF Nos. 124-10 and 124-11. On July
10, 2024, Magistrate Judge Figueredo granted Amazon’s motion to
permanently seal these two documents.
For substantially the same reasons, they should remain sealed in
connection with this briefing.
Third, Amazon requests permission to file Salant Declaration
Exhibit 9 under seal. Exhibit 9 is an installation agreement signed
by a building representative agreeing to the terms of installation
of the Key for Business device ("KfB").
The document includes the name, phone number, and an email address
of the building representative, and information about the building
such as its number of units and whether there are keys to control
the lock box at the building.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ux9MS6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
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: DSalant@gibsondunn.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Seal Certain Docs in GateGuard
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GateGuard, Inc. v.
Amazon.com Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-09321-JGK-VF (S.D.N.Y.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order sealing the
following documents in its forthcoming motion to dismiss, to deny
class certification, and to strike class claims.
First, Amazon requests permission to file seven documents produced
by Plaintiff GateGuard—namely, Exhibits 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22,
and 23 to the accompanying declaration of David P.
Salant—provisionally under seal.
Amazon does not believe any of these documents must be permanently
filed under seal. On September 30, 2024, the parties conferred via
email and GateGuard asserted that these documents contain
GateGuard’s confidential information.
Accordingly, Amazon is filing these documents under seal in the
first instance, so that GateGuard may have an opportunity to move
for permanent sealing. For the same reason, Amazon requests leave
to redact quotations of these documents from the publicly docketed
versions of its memorandum of law and supporting declaration.
Second, Amazon requests permission for permanent sealing of
Exhibits 3 and 10 to the Salant Declaration. These documents were
previously filed under seal at ECF Nos. 124-10 and 124-11. On July
10, 2024, Magistrate Judge Figueredo granted Amazon’s motion to
permanently seal these two documents.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ch65eQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
David P. Salant, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Telephone: (212) 351-2486
Facsimile: (212) 817-9586
E-mail: DSalant@gibsondunn.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Incorrectly Calculate Annuities, Parisi Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS PARISI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., THE EMPLOYEE
BENEFITS COMMITTEE AND JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-09271 (N.D. Ill., October 1, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for declaratory and equitable relief and
breach of fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to pay joint and
survivor benefits under four American Airlines pension plans in
amounts that satisfy the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 Section 205's actuarial equivalence requirements. According to
the complaint, the Defendants used flawed formulas to calculate
qualified joint and survivor annuities benefits, based on
antiquated, unreasonable actuarial assumptions, resulting in
monthly payments that are materially lower than they would be if
the Defendants used conversion factors based on up-to-date,
reasonable actuarial assumptions.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court (1)
declaring that the actuarial assumptions and conversion factors
used to determine QJSA benefits under the plans produce benefits
that are less than the actuarial equivalent of the single life
annuities (SLAs) offered to participants; (2) requiring the
Defendants to recalculate the Plaintiff's and the Class's QJSA
benefits in a manner consistent with ERISA's actuarial equivalence
requirements; (3) requiring the Defendants to pay all amounts
improperly withheld in the past; (4) requiring the Defendants to
increase the amounts of the Plaintiff's and the Class's future
benefit payments; and (5) for such other relief as the Court
determines to be just and equitable.
American Airlines, Inc. is an airline company, with its
headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle D. McLean, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
- and -
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com
cbarrett@ikrlaw.com
- and -
Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
M. Zane Johnson, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
One Corporate Center
20 Church Street, 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 218-2720
Email: dneedham@motleyrice.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: White ADA Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Santrise White, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No.
5:23-cv-01164 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on Oct. 1, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00935-O to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
American Airlines -- https://www.aa.com/ -- is a major airline in
the United States headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Fax: (361) 452-1284
Email: austin@a2xlaw.com
- and -
Brian P. Sanford, Esq.
BRIAN P. SANFORD PC
1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 15400
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (469) 361-9111
Fax: (214) 919-0113
Email: bsanford@sanfordfirm.com
- and -
Elizabeth (BB) Sanford, Esq.
Michelle Mutole Juma
THE SANFORD FIRM
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 15400
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (469) 361-9122
Email: esanford@sanfordfirm.com
mjuma@sanfordfirm.com
- and -
William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark W. Robertson, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 326-2000
Fax: (212) 326-2061
Email: mrobertson@omm.com
- and -
Molly Billings Shuminer, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
303 Colorado Street Suite 2750
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (737) 261-8600
Email: mshuminer@omm.com
AMERICAN RESTAURANTS: Martin Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Martin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN RESTAURANTS GROUP, INC., Case No.
CACE-24-012254 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Aug. 27,
2024), is brought to stop Defendant from charging and collecting
sales tax on delivery fees from customers who order food from
Defendant in Florida when the fee could have been avoided by the
decision or action of the customer.
In Florida, sales tax may only be imposed on the total sales price
of taxable tangible property. The sales price is the total amount
paid for tangible goods, including services that are part of the
sale. However, when a customer has the option to either pick up the
goods or have the goods delivered by the seller, a seller may not
legally charge sales tax on a separate charge for delivery.
In violation of Florida law, Defendant charged Plaintiff and the
Class Members, and continues to charge them, sales tax on delivery
fees. The Defendant's violations of Florida law caused Plaintiff
and the Class Members harm in the amount of the unlawfully
collected. The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of Plaintiff and each
member of the proposed Class, damages, reasonable attorney's fees
and other litigation costs reasonably incurred, and such other
equitable relief as the court determines appropriate, including
injunctive and declaratory relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County,
Florida.
The Defendant owns and/or operates over multiple restaurant
locations throughout Florida including Denny's stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 533-4092
Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com
- and -
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO PA
401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
ARDELYX INC: N.D. California Dismisses Strezsak Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit titled STEVEN STREZSAK, et al., Plaintiffs v.
ARDELYX INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-05868-HSG (N.D.
Cal.).
Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss the Lead
Plaintiff's putative securities class action filed by Defendants
Ardelyx Inc., Mike Raab, Justin Renz, and David Rosenbaum. The
Court finds the matter appropriate for disposition without oral
argument and the matter is deemed submitted.
Defendant Ardelyx is a biopharmaceutical company that began
developing tenapanor around 2009 as a treatment for irritable bowel
syndrome. Several years later, Ardelyx pivoted to seeking U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval of tenapanor for the
treatment of hyperphosphatemia, a condition resulting from high
levels of phosphate in the blood.
Ardelyx conducted three clinical trials of tenapanor as a treatment
for hyperphosphatemia (i.e., excess serum phosphates) in patients
with chronic kidney disease ("CKD") on dialysis using a "surrogate"
endpoint -- the level of serum phosphates measured in trial
participants that could be attributed to the use of tenapanor --
rather than a particular clinical outcome (e.g., reduced morbidity
or mortality).
In November 2017, the FDA provided Ardelyx with feedback on the
protocol and statistical plan analysis for Ardelyx's upcoming
second study. It advised Ardelyx in a letter that "[i]f the size of
the effect of tenapanor on serum phosphorous [was] significantly
smaller than the size of the effect of currently approved phosphate
binders," Ardelyx would "need to address the clinical relevance of
the effect size of [tenapanor] on serum phosphorus."
In response to Ardelyx's request for feedback concerning whether
the results of its third study to be conducted in 2019 could
support additional labeling claims, the FDA reiterated its previous
advice in a December 2018 letter, stating that "[a]ssuming the
trial is well-conducted and the size of the treatment effect is
clinically relevant, we agree that the results could be described
in labeling."
In March 2020, after the conclusion of the tenapanor clinical
trials, senior Ardelyx officials attended a meeting with FDA
personnel regarding the forthcoming tenapanor new drug application
(NDA) ("March 2020 Meeting"). The FDA indicated that Ardelyx's NDA
should address the clinical relevance of the magnitude of the
treatment effect of tenapanor on serum phosphorus shown in the
clinical trials because while it had accepted serum phosphorus as a
surrogate endpoint and basis for approval for products intended to
treat hyperphosphatemia, a treatment effect of any magnitude is not
considered sufficient to support approval. The FDA also noted that
it was interested in evidence supporting the conclusion that the
magnitude of the treatment effect of tenapanor was clinically
relevant, as opposed to "expert opinion."
The Plaintiff alleges that at least one Ardelyx official, who
attended the meeting interpreted the FDA's comments as indicating
that the FDA would reject the NDA in the absence of data
demonstrating that the smaller reduction in serum phosphorus
achieved in the tenapanor trials benefited patients.
The results of the three clinical trials ultimately showed that
tenapanor was less effective at reducing serum phosphorous than
existing treatments. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants,
therefore, falsely portrayed their interactions with the FDA as
positive and approval of the tenapanor NDA as all but assured. For
example, on May 7, 2020, and Aug. 6, 2020, Ardelyx issued press
releases characterizing the data supporting the soon-to-be
submitted tenapanor NDA as "strong" and "robust."
In November 2020, Defendant Rosenbaum stated at an investor
conference that the tenapanor Phase 3 trials showed "that if you
dose tenapanor [alone], you get a significant and clinically
relevant phosphate lowering." During the same presentation, the
Defendants further assured investors that Ardelyx's interactions so
far with the FDA had gone exceedingly well.
On July 19, 2021, Ardelyx disclosed that the FDA had "identified
deficiencies" in the NDA that precluded the application from moving
forward. Ardelyx shares fell from their July 19 closing price of
$7.70 per share to a July 20 closing price of only $2.01 per share,
representing "a one-day drop of nearly 74%."
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action on behalf of
individuals, who purchased or otherwise acquired Ardelyx securities
between May 7, 2020, and July 19, 2021, inclusive ("Class Period"),
and who were damaged as a result of the Defendants' violations of
the Exchange Act ("Class").
On March 18, 2024, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint
on the ground that the Plaintiff had not adequately alleged that
the Defendants misled investors about the tenapanor application.
Specifically, the Court held that the Plaintiff did not
sufficiently allege falsity under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act ("PSLRA") because he failed to allege that the FDA's
statements convinced the Defendants that the tenapanor review
process was not actually proceeding in an ordinary manner, that the
clinical data was not robust or clinically relevant, and that
approval was, thus, in jeopardy.
On April 14, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint
("TAC"). The Defendants moved to dismiss.
The Defendants request that the Court incorporate Exhibits 1–4,
6, 10, and 12 into the TAC. The Court previously incorporated by
reference into the SAC the documents now marked as Exhibits 1
through 4, 6, 10, and 12. The Plaintiff refers to and relies upon
these same exhibits for the same purposes in the TAC.
The Court agrees that these documents either form the basis of the
Plaintiff's claims or are referred to extensively in the TAC. The
Court grants the request to incorporate these documents by
reference.
The Court has already taken judicial notice of the documents now
marked as Exhibits 1–10 and 12. SAC Order at 5–7. The Court
continues to take judicial notice of these documents.
The Defendants additionally request that the Court take judicial
notice of two new exhibits. They first request the Court take
notice of Exhibit 11, a quarterly financial report on Form 10-Q
filed with the SEC. Ardelyx publicly filed this document with the
SEC and it is available to the public through the SEC's website.
Second, they request that the Court take judicial notice of Exhibit
13, which depicts Ardelyx's historical stock price during the Class
Period.
Accordingly, the Court takes judicial notice of the documents
described in this section for the purpose of considering what was
disclosed to the market. In doing so, the Court does not assume the
truth of any of the facts asserted.
In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants contend that the
statements challenged in the SAC are not materially false or
misleading.
With the exception of two new statements, the TAC challenges the
same statements as did the previous iteration of the complaint. The
Plaintiff claims that the Third Amended Complaint now adequately
pleads falsity as to these previously alleged statements, pointing
to three new categories of allegations that support his theory of
falsity.
Because the Plaintiff fails to support this theory with newly
alleged facts, the Court's previous holding remains undisturbed,
Judge Gilliam holds. Because the Plaintiff fails to support his
theory with newly alleged facts, the Court again does not depart
from its prior holding.
Because the Plaintiff fails to allege with particularity facts
supporting its assumptions that the confidential witnesses were in
a position to be personally knowledgeable of the information
alleged, Judge Gilliam points out that the allegations relating to
the anonymous Ardelyx official do not support a finding that he has
adequately plead falsity.
The Plaintiff alleges two new statements in the TAC from Ardelyx's
risk disclosures. He first challenges the following disclosure in
Ardelyx's March 2021 annual report: "The FDA may not grant approval
on a timely basis, or at all. . . ." The Plaintiff also challenges
a disclosure from the same report noting that Tenapanor's
"commercial success" depends on whether "tenapanor's safety and
efficacy profile is satisfactory to the FDA and foreign regulatory
authorities."
The Plaintiff contends that these warnings failed to inform
investors that Ardelyx did not have the results necessary to gain
FDA approval. Notably, the Court previously found that these
specific risk disclosures revealed the thrust of the allegedly
omitted facts and, thus, undermined the Plaintiff's theory of
falsity.
Given the dearth of new factual allegations supporting the
Plaintiff's theory of falsity, the Court's opinion is unchanged on
this point. Moreover, to adequately challenge a risk disclosure,
the Plaintiff must allege particularized facts suggesting that the
warned-of risks had already materialized at the time of the
disclosure. Because the FDA had not communicated any determinations
about the tenapanor application at the time of the Defendants' risk
warnings, Judge Gilliam points out that the Plaintiff fails to
allege that the risk materialized.
Because the Plaintiff does not adequately plead a Section 10(b)
claim, his Section 20(a) claim fails, Judge Gilliam holds.
Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiff has failed to cure the
defects in his complaint, and does not seek leave to amend. For
these reasons, the Court grants the motion to dismiss without
further leave to amend. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in
favor of the Defendants and close the file.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/uj58twka from PacerMonitor.com.
ASCEND FINANCE: Filing for Class Cert Objection Extended to Oct. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Law Offices of William
M. Gillen PC v. Ascend Finance Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00456
(D.N.H., Filed Oct. 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante
entered an endorsed order granting assented to motion to extend
time to object / respond to motion to certify class to Oct. 14,
2024.
The nature of suit states statutory actions -- trademark
infringement.[CC]
ASHTON WOODS USA: Frolo Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashton Woods USA,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kelly Frolo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ashton Woods USA, LLC,
Starlight Homes Florida LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02030-KKM-SPF (M.D.
Fla., Aug. 27, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Ashton Woods -- https://www.ashtonwoods.com/ -- is an award winning
luxury home builder.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO PA
401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 533-4092
Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com
AVIS RENT: Schachenman Sues Over Compromised Info of Customers
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHASE SCHACHENMAN and JASON BUNDRICK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AVIS RENT A CAR
SYSTEM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-09506 (D.N.J., September
27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
injunctive/declaratory relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its
network systems following a data breach as early as August 3, 2024.
The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Avis Rent A Car System, LLC is a global rental car company,
headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jcshah@millershah.com
ajberin@millershah.com
- and -
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
Daniel L.M. Pulgram, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union St., Ste. 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
Email: aschubert@sjk.law
dpulgram@sjk.law
BANK OF AMERICA: Overcharges Military Members, Taylor Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN TAYLOR, and RICK HAWTHORNE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants, Case No.
5:24-cv-00560-D (E.D.N.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act, Truth in Lending Act, and Federal Declaratory Judgment
Act, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach
of fiduciary duty or special trust, accounting, and constructive
trust.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their statutory
and contractual duties to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
military members by charging interest rates and fees that were too
high, allowing unlawful charges to improperly inflate
servicemembers' principal balances, and charging compound interest
on these inflated balances. The Defendants then concealed
overcharges from the thousands of military families victimized by
their practices. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful and
wrongful conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered
damages, says the suit.
Bank of America Corporation is a bank holding company and financial
services holding company with headquarters in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking association with its
principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Knoll D. Lowney, Esq.
Claire Tonry, Esq.
Marc Zemel, Esq.
Alyssa Koepfgen, Esq.
SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC
2317 E. John Street
Seattle, WA 98112
Telephone: (206) 860-2883
Facsimile: (206) 860-4187
Email: Knoll@smithandlowney.com
Claire@smithandlowney.com
Marc@smithandlowney.com
Alyssa@smithandlowney.com
- and -
Paul J. Puryear, Jr., Esq.
Matthew D. Ballew, Esq.
BALLEW PURYEAR, PLLC
4000 Westchase Blvd., Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: (984) 370-3030
Facsimile: (984) 960-1982
Email: MBallew@ballewlaw.com
PPuryear@ballewlaw.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Must File Class Cert Bid 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 Hon. Judge Dana
Sabraw entered an order granting the stipulated briefing schedule
on Plaintiff Covell's motion for class certification:
1. The Plaintiff shall file her motion to certify the FCTI Class
on
or before Nov. 8, 2024.
2. The Defendant shall file its opposition to the motion for
class
certification on or before Jan. 10, 2025.
3. The Plaintiff shall file its reply in support of the motion
for
class certification on or before Jan. 24, 2025.
4. The hearing on Plaintiff Covell's motion for class
certification
shall be on Feb. 7, 2025, at 1:30 p.m.
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oTgYjc at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANTRY GROUP: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Robledo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robledo v. The Bantry
Group Corporation et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-03193-MMM-JEH (C.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order
as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HbrWVw at no extra
charge.[CC]
BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Class Settlement in Stewart Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY STEWART, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BAPTIST MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Case No.
2:21-cv-02377-SHM-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Samuel Mays, Jr.
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
final approval of class action settlement:
-- The Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs, service
award/general release payment to class representative, and
payment
to settlement administrator, is also granted.
The following Classes are certified for final settlement purposes
only:
Disclosure and Authorization Class:
"All persons residing in the United States (1) who applied for
a
position with Defendant; (2) about whom Defendant procured a
consumer report between June 7, 2019, through Aug. 8, 2022; and
(3) who submitted a valid claim to the Settlement Administrator
within the claims deadline."
Pre-Adverse Action Subclass:
"All persons residing in the United States (1) who are members
of
the Disclosure and Authorization Class; (2) who Defendant
declined to hire; (3) who were marked in Defendant's system as
"Failed Background Report." "Null" or "Other;" (4) who
Defendant
has been unable to confirm receipt of a preadverse action
notice;
and (5) who submitted a valid claim to the Settlement
Administrator within the claims deadline."
The Plaintiff Stewart is appointed representative for the Class and
Subclass.
-- Marc R. Edelman is appointed Class Counsel.
-- The Settlement provides for a Settlement Fund of $420,566.00.
That
amount is approved. The Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate pursuant to the FCRA and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure
23(e)(2). The Settlement Agreement is incorporated into this
Order
and finally approved in its entirety.
-- The record shows that settlement notices have been distributed
to
the members of the Classes in the manner approved in the
Court's
May 20, 2024, Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Settlement Approval.
Baptist Memorial is a health system with 24 hospitals scattered
across 6 states.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=huTYlk at no extra
charge.[CC]
BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE: Vargas Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barclays Bank
Delaware. The case is styled as Arthur Vargas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Barclays Bank Delaware,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06549-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Barclays Bank Delaware -- https://cards.barclaycardus.com/ --
offers credit cards. The Bank provides credit cards for travel,
entertainment, retail, and business purposes, as well as co-branded
cards from different companies and institutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
121 N. Washington Ave., Ste. 4th Floor
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Fax: (212) 253-4272
Email: cmoore@reesellp.com
- and -
Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
MICHAEL REESE
100 West 93rd Street, Ste 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Phone: (212) 594-5300
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
BCE-MACH LLC: Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wake Energy, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. BCE-MACH
LLC, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00794-HE (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting proposed Judgment, as
follows:
(1) final certification of the Settlement Class;
(2) final approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class;
and
(3) final approval of the Notice to Class Members.
Because the proposed Initial Plan of Allocation was formulated by
competent and experienced Counsel and is based on the type and
extent of each Class Member's particular loss, the Court should
approve it as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
On July 23, 2024, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving
the Settlement, approving the Plan of Notice, and setting a date of
November 4, 2024 for the Final Fairness Hearing.
BCE-Mach provides petroleum refining services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f7Rbws at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randy C. Smith, Esq.
RANDY C. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES
One Leadership Square, Suite 1310
211 North Robinson Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 212-2786
Facsimile: (405) 232-6515
E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com
– and –
Brady L. Smith, Esq.
Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq.
BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC
One Leadership Square, Suite 1320
211 N. Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 293-3029
E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com
skeeter@blsmithlaw.com
BH SECURITY: Robertson Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BH SECURITY LLC d/b/a BRINKS HOME, Case No.
3:24-cv-02233-L (M.D. Tex., Aug. 29, 2024), is brought under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), alleging that the
Defendant made unsolicited telemarketing calls to her residential
telephone number that is listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry.
Because telemarketing calls typically use technology capable of
generating thousands of similar calls per day, the Plaintiff sues
on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who
received similar calls. A class action is the best means of
obtaining redress for the Defendant’s illegal telemarketing and
is consistent both with the private right of action afforded by the
TCPA and the fairness and efficiency goals of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Erin Robertson is an individual.
Brinks generates potential customers for its home security
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW PC
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: 615-485-001
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
BINANCE HOLDINGS: Martin's Bid to Serve Summons to Zhao Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Service of Summons and Complaint by United States
Marshal in the lawsuit styled PHILIP MARTIN, T.F. (NATALIE) TANG,
and YATIN KHANNA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. BINANCE HOLDINGS, LTD d/b/a
BINANCE, BAM TRADING SERVICES INC. d/b/a BINANCE.US, a Delaware
corporation, and CHANGPENG ZHAO, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-01264-BJR (W.D. Wash.).
Binance Holdings Ltd. operates as a cryptocurrency exchange
platform. The Company provides currency payment services. The
Company offers services worldwide.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) and Local Rule
4(c), the Court directs the United States Marshal Service to serve
Defendant Changpeng Zhao (BOP Register Number 88087-510) with a
copy of the Class Action Complaint, Summons, and any other
case-related documents, at RRM Long Beach, 1299 Seaside Avenue, in
San Pedro, California 90731, Defendant Changpeng Zhao's specific
RRC, or any other location where service may be proper.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2c696kjd from PacerMonitor.com.
Samuel H. Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Evan J. Kaufman --
ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com -- Jonathan A. Ohlmann -- johlmann@rgrdlaw.com
-- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, in Melville, NY 11747; Lynn
Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Derek W. Loeser --
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Chris N. Ryder --
cryder@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P., in Seattle, WA
98101, for the Plaintiffs.
BIOGEN INC: Manipulates Generic Competition, Teamsters Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 WELFARE FUND and TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 RETIREES'
BENEFIT FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIOGEN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09058 (N.D. Ill., September 27, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for antitrust law and consumer protection law
violations.
The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful scheme to impair
competition from generic versions of its brand-name prescription
drug Tecfidera, which is used to treat multiple sclerosis. To
forestall generic competition and the consequent loss of the
Defendant's sales, it crafted a market-switch strategy. Biogen
developed a "next generation" version of Tecfidera, called
Vumerity. The Defendant then entered into unlawful restraints of
trade with pharmacy benefit managers to manipulate the placement of
generic Tecfidera on their formularies. These bought-and-paid-for
manipulations substantially muted the competition from generic
Tecfidera. That period of impaired competition, in turn, gave the
Defendant the time it needed to switch a large portion of the
market from Tecfidera to Vumerity. As a result of the Defendant's
unlawful practices, generic competition has significantly and
permanently impaired, says the suit.
Local 237 Welfare Fund is a health and welfare benefit plan
headquartered in New York, New York.
Teamsters Local 237 Retirees' Benefit Fund is a health and welfare
benefit plan headquartered in New York, New York.
Biogen Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place
of business in Cambridge, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
Paul E. Slater, Esq.
John P. Bjork, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
Email: jvanek@sperling-law.com
pes@sperling-law.com
jbjork@sperling-law.com
- and -
Phillip F. Cramer, Esq.
Dean J. Balaes, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
1221 Broadway, Suite 2140
Nashville, TN 37212
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
Email: pcramer@sperling-law.com
dbalaes@sperling-law.com
- and -
James Almon, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
2707 Killarney Way, Suite 202
Tallahassee, FL 32309
Telephone: (850) 354-5300
Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
Email: jalmon@sperling-law.com
- and -
Ryan T. Holt, Esq.
SHERRARD ROE VOIGT & HARBISON, PLC
1600 West End Ave., Suite 1750
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 742-4200
Email: rholt@srvhlaw.com
- and -
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
Nicholas W. Shadowen, Esq.
Kathryn B. Allen, Esq.
HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
1717 W. 6th St., Ste. 290
Austin, TX 78703
Email: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
nshadowen@hilliardshadowelaw.com
kallen@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
- and -
Lee Albert, Esq.
Brian Brooks, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com
bbrooks@glancylaw.com
BLUE ATLANTIC: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Julian Gonzalez, an individual and others similarly situated
v. BLUE ATLANTIC PARTNERS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company; BAP LOGISTICS, a business entity form unknown; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive; Case No. 24STCV21924 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Aug. 27, 2024), is brought against the Defendants'
violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as a result
of the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage, failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to pay rest period compensation, failure to
pay meal period compensation; failure to pay wages upon discharge;
failure to indemnify and illegal deductions from wages; unfair
competition.
The Defendants misclassified workers as independent contractors in
violation of Labor Code (e.g. paying them without payroll
withholdings). The Defendants failed to keep track of Plaintiffs
and other employees' actual hours worked. Employees' pay was
rounded and inaccurate. This is in violation of the "Records"
section of Wage Order 9 and other wage orders. Meal and rest breaks
violations based on business necessities. The Plaintiff was not
afforded breaks. Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and other
for work-related use of their personal cell phones. The Defendants
worked employees off the clock without compensation. Defendants
failed to pay overtime for shifts exceeding 8 hours or workweeks
exceeding 40 hours, and failed to pay double-overtime for shifts
exceeding 12 hours per day, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
final wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a driver.
BLUE ATLANTIC PARTNERS, LLC and BAP LOGISTICS is a logistics
company operating in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (818) 473-5003
Facsimile: (818) 476-5619
Email: contact@slawla.com
BP PRODUCTS: White Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mack White, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. BP Products North
America Inc., John Does 1-10, Case No. CVRI2403774 removed from the
Riverside County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 26, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01827-SPG-SK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
BP Products North America Inc. -- https://www.bp.com/ -- provides
oil and natural gas exploration, development, production, and
marketing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Terzian, Esq.
Erick Kees Kuylman, Esq.
Thomas D. Warren, Esq.
WARREN TERZIAN LLP
222 North Pacific Coast Highway Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90245
Phone: (213) 410-2620
Email: dan.terzian@warrenterzian.com
erick.kuylman@warrenterzian.com
tom.warren@warrenterzian.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Phillip Allan Trajan Perez, Esq.
MILLER NASH LLP
340 Golden Shore Suite 450
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 435-8002
Fax: (562) 435-7967
Email: trajan.perez@millernash.com
BRT WEEKEND: Codner Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BRT Weekend Touring
Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Evonese Codner, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. BRT Weekend Touring
Agency, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01181 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 1, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
BRT Weekend Touring Agency LLC is using Eventbrite to organize 3
upcoming events.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (615) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Bid for Class Cert. in Bryant Due Oct. 25
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bryant et al., v. Buffalo
Exchange, LTD., Case No. 1:23-cv-08286-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the parties
propose class certification schedule:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Oct. 11, 2024 Oct. 25, 2024
Certification
Defendant's Opposition Nov. 12, 2024 Nov. 26, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply Dec. 3, 2024 Dec. 17, 2024
The parties propose that they will submit a joint letter by October
18, 2024, to update the Court on the progress of the settlement
negotiations and to request a further calendar modification if
significant progress towards settlement has been made.
This is the parties' first joint request for an extension of
deadlines for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. 1 We
thank the Court for its attention to this matter and will provide
the Court with further information as directed
Buffalo Exchange is an American fashion resale retailer.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MfzDom at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
Michael C. Danna, Esq.
Amy Maurer, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Ave., 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
The Defendant is represented by:
Lawrence J. Del Rossi, Esq.
Andrew B. Murphy, Esq.
Kacie Phillips Tawfic, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Fl.
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 248-3140
CARGILL MEAT: Court to Certify Class in Villa Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER VILLA and SUSAN
DAVIDSON, o/b/o themselves and others similarly situated, V.
CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORP., Case No. 3:22-cv-01321-RDM (M.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert Mariani will grant Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and will grant Plaintiffs' request that
Plaintiffs' counsel be appointed class counsel.
The Plaintiffs' request that the court approve their proposed
notice and notice protocols will be held in abeyance. A separate
Order will be entered.
Because the Court has found that all superiority factors weigh in
favor of certification and Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23(a)
prerequisites as well as Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirements
by a preponderance of the evidence, the Court concludes that the
proposed class should be certified.
The Court agrees with Defendant that a "meet and confer" approach
to resolving the notice and timeline issues is preferable to a
Court determination made after full briefing. Therefore, the Court
will not further discuss the notice and protocols proposed by
Plaintiffs, and instead will direct the parties to submit an
appropriate notice and schedule after they have had an opportunity
to confer.
In their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
"has violated the PMWA by failing to pay overtime wages for time
associated with various required activities arising before
employees 'punch-in' and after the 'punch-out' for payroll
purposes."
Specifically, the Plaintiffs point to the time associated with the
COVID screening process and the time spent walking to and from
timeclocks within the plants.
Cargill operates three facilities in Pennsylvania for processing
and distributing meat.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n0UCrG at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHARLES SCHWAB: Sweeps Customers' Cash Balances, Davis Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DAVIS and TERRANCE "TJ" MCDONALD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CHARLES
SCHWAB CORPORATION and CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-08410 (C.D. Cal., September 30, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, and gross negligence.
The case arises from a cash sweep program implemented by Charles
Schwab wherein it automatically sweeps uninvested cash balances in
its customers' accounts and moves them into an interest-bearing
account that generates returns for itself instead of its clients.
Rather than act as a fiduciary in the best interests of Charles
Schwab's account holders or fulfill its contractual and implied
covenant obligations to its customers, Charles Schwab used its
customers' funds to enrich itself at the expense of its own
clients. As a result of Charles Schwab's misconduct, the Plaintiffs
and the Class suffered financial harm, says the suit.
The Charles Schwab Corporation is a provider of brokerage, banking,
and financial advisory services, with its principal place of
business in Westlake, Texas.
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. is a wholly-owned broker-dealer
subsidiary of The Charles Schwab Corporation, with its principal
place of business in Westlake, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 819-3470
Email: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
- and -
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Adam Wierzbowski, Esq.
Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Email: salvatore@blbglaw.com
johnr@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
adam@blbglaw.com
michaelb@blbglaw.com
- and -
Robert J. Jackson, Jr., Esq.
BUZIN LAW, P.C.
3003 Purchase Street
P.O. Box 529
Purchase, NY 10577
Telephone: (212) 879-8100
Email: robert.j.jackson@nyu.edu
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Pre-Motion Conference Sought in Sayles Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loomis Sayles Trust
Company LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06706-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order granting a pre-motion conference in connection with its
anticipated motion for class certification and appointment of class
counsel.
With summary judgment having been decided, both LSTC and CGMI agree
that it is time for the Parties to brief LSTC's anticipated motion
for class certification.
The Parties incorporate by reference their prior three-page letter
submissions relating to class certification.
The Parties propose the following briefing schedule with respect to
LSTC's motion for class certification and appointment of class
counsel:
-- Oct. 21, 2024: LSTC files its opening brief
-- Nov. 20, 2024: CGMI files its opposition brief
-- Dec. 11, 2024: LSTC files its reply brief
Second, the Parties are in receipt of the Court's Amended Order
setting pretrial deadlines and a trial-ready date in this matter.
In light of the need to have class certification determined first,
the Parties respectfully request that the pretrial and trial dates
be re-set and keyed off of the date of the Court's decision on
LSTC's motion for class certification, with the first pretrial date
of submissions of motions in limine set two months after the date
of the Court's decision on LSTC's anticipated motion for class
certification, and the other dates to follow sequentially.
Citigroup provides banking and financial services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W8ANZ1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Parties are represented by:
Michael A. Paskin, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Manhattan West, 375 9th Ave
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 474-1760
E-mail: MPaskin@cravath.com
- and -
Matthew Baltay, Esq.
FOLEY HOAG LLP
155 Seaport Blvd,
Boston, MA
Telephone: (617) 832-1262
E-mail: mbaltay@foleyhoag.com
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Scheduled Trial in Loomis Adjourned
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loomis Sayles Trust
Company LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06706-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield
entered a briefing scheduling order as follows:
-- The trial scheduled for February 10, 2025, and deadlines for
all
related submissions are adjourned sine die.
-- The Parties propose the following briefing schedule with
respect
to LSTC's motion for class certification and appointment of
class
counsel:
-- Oct. 21, 2024: LSTC files its opening brief
-- Nov. 20, 2024: CGMI files its opposition brief
-- Dec. 11, 2024: LSTC files its reply brief
Second, the Parties are in receipt of the Court's Amended Order
setting pretrial deadlines and a trial-ready date in this matter.
Citigroup provides banking and financial services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LsHrzl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Parties are represented by:
Michael A. Paskin, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Manhattan West, 375 9th Ave
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 474-1760
E-mail: MPaskin@cravath.com
- and -
Matthew Baltay, Esq.
FOLEY HOAG LLP
155 Seaport Blvd,
Boston, MA
Telephone: (617) 832-1262
E-mail: mbaltay@foleyhoag.com
CITY HIVE: Pollitt Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
------------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK POLLITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY HIVE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06928 (E.D.N.Y., October 1, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.michaeltownewines.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: changing of content without advance warning,
inaccurate landmark structure, redundant links where adjacent links
go to the same URL address, hidden elements on the web page,
inadequate focus order, unclear labels for interactive elements,
the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, 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.
City Hive, 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
CMS INVESTMENT GROUP: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CMS Investment Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Dana Brooks, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CMS
Investment Group, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0010832 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 30, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
CMS Investment Resources, LLC operates as a brokerage firm. The
Company focuses on the business of buying and selling securities
such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and certain other investment
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Molly DeSario, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
475 14th St., Ste. 700
Oakland, CA 94612-1945
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: molly.desario@wilshirelawfirm.com
COASTAL TRUCKING: Martin Seeks Conditional Status of Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSCAR MARTIN, YANAPHIS
MORENO, MAXIM SHKOLNIK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. COASTAL TRUCKING INSURANCE LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, Case No. 9:24-cv-80858-WPD (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying case as a collective action and facilitating notice, on
a nationwide basis, to similarly situated employees of the pendency
of this action and advising them of their statutory right to file a
consent to opt-in to this action and to become a party-plaintiff.
Within the three years statute of limitations period for FLSA
willful violations, Coastal formerly employed Plaintiffs as sales
agents, classifying Plaintiff Martin as a W-2 employee and
classifying Plaintiffs Moreno and Shkolnik as 1099 independent
contractors.
Coastal entered into employment Agreements with the Plaintiffs,
which contemplated Plaintiffs performing work for Coastal as sales
agents, including soliciting and servicing all business Coastal
offers and rendering such services to customers.
The Agreements include a written pay policy and scheme applicable
to all its sales agents, regardless of their pay classification as
W-2 employees or 1099 independent contractors.
Under the Pay Policy, the Defendant failed to pay its sales agents
statutory minimum wages finally and unconditionally during their
employment.
Coastal Trucking is an independent insurance agency specializing in
commercial truck insurance.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XxKbQH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
Robin I. Frank, Esq.
PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP
3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 544-8900
E-mail: DRL@PBL-Law.com
RIF@PBL-Law.com
- and -
Allison B. Duffie, Esq.
DUFFIE LAW, PLLC
2234 North Federal Hwy., Suite 1196
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 440-1196
E-mail: allison@duffie.law
COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Sotero Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMBAR JAZMINE SOTERO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. COMMUNICATIONS TEST DESIGN, INC.,
a Pennsylvania corporation; GERALD PARSONS, an individual and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2424981, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, San Bernardino
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on September 27, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-02072 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' violations of California Labor
Code and California's Business and Professions Code including (1)
failure to pay overtime wages, (2) failure to pay minimum wages,
(3) failure to provide meal periods, (4) failure to provide rest
periods, (5) waiting time penalties, (6) wage statement violations,
(7) failure to timely pay wages, (8) failure to indemnify, and (10)
unfair competition.
Communications Test Design, Inc. is an engineering, repair, and
logistics company, headquartered in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Caroline P. Donelan, Esq.
Caitlin I. Sanders, Esq.
Nicole N. Wentworth, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 239-3400
Facsimile: (424) 239-3434
Email: caroline.donelan@blankrome.com
caitlin.sanders@blankrome.com
nicole.wentworth@blankrome.com
COMMUNITY CARE: Seeks to Decertify Beh Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORETHA BEH, RUBY CASON,
BRIANA KINCANNON and KIMBERLY BALKUM, Individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, v. COMMUNITY CARE COMPANIONS INC.,
ALEXANDER J. CARO, MARK GATIEN, INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF ROCHESTER,
INC., and JAMES WATSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01417-JLS-MJR (W.D.N.Y.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to
Decertify the Rule 23 Class Action and for such other and further
relief as the Court deems just and proper, including costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees.
Community Care is a home care and nurse staffing agency
specializing in hourly and live-in care.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uOsdQm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian Hayes, Esq.
HAYES DOLCE
135 Delaware Avenue, Suite 502
Buffalo, New York 14202
Telephone: (716) 608-3427
- and -
James Reif, Esq.
Jessica Harris, Esq.
GLADSTEIN, REIF & MEGINNISS LLP
39 Broadway, Suite 2430
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212)-228-7727
The Defendants are represented by:
Noel P. Tripp, Esq.
Brian J. Shenker, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
58 South Service Road, Suite 250
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 247-0404
CONAGRA FOODS: Ruiz Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Margarita Ruiz, an individual, and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals v. CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED
FOODS, LLC; a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. CV-24-005877 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Stanislaus, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 30,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02374-CSK.
On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a civil complaint against
Defendant, which sets forth the following causes of action: 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; unfair competition
(the "Complaint").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Kelin, Esq.
Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
zach@tomorrowlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew Weissler, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Ste 1500
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 480-1926
Facsimile: (314) 480-1505
Email: AJ.Weissler@huschblackwell.com
CRITERION COLLECTION: Discloses Video Info to 3rd Party, Soto Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS LUCCHESE-SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CRITERION COLLECTION, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07345 (S.D.N.Y., September 27, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Video
Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to
unrelated third parties, including Twilio and Meta Platforms, Inc.,
the personally identifiable information (PII) and video viewing
information of its website and app users without consent.
Specifically, the Defendant disclosed the users': (i) name, (ii)
email address, (iii) User ID, and (iv) video-viewing information
including the video title, and video ID of the video they watched.
As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class
members' statutorily protected privacy rights.
The Criterion Collection, LLC is an American home-video
distribution company, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Z. Kopel, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Victoria X. Zhou, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
vzhou@bursor.com
CROWN NUT: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crown Nut Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Ayli Lopez, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Crown Nut Company, Inc., Madrigal
Farm Labor, Inc., Royal Crown Nut Company, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0012589 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 1,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Crown Nut Co. -- https://www.crownnutcompany.com/ -- is an almond
processor based in Tracy, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Susan Huerta, Esq.
PROTECTION LAW GROUP
149 Sheldon St.
El Segundo, CA 90245-3916
Phone: 424-290-3095
Email: susan@protectionlawgroup.com
CYBERSOFT TECHNOLOGY: Myers Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cybersoft Technology,
Inc. The case is styled as Patricia Myers and Maryhesper Santos, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cybersoft
Technology, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-07186-MEMF-JPR (C.D. Cal., Aug.
23, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Cybersoft Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.cybersoft.net/ -- is a
leading provider of innovative business software solutions,
information technology and consulting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq.
Amanda Jasmine Rosenberg, Esq.
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
490 43rd Street, No. 122
Oakland, CA 94609
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
arosenberg@kalielgold.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
D2C LLC: Bid for Conditional Case Schedule Amendment Tossed as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez v. D2C, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-21394 (S.D. Fla., Filed April 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge
Robert N. Scola, Jr., entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for a conditional amendment of the case schedule as moot.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for an enlargement of time was premised
on
the Court's certifying a class.
-- Since the Court has denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, there is no longer any need for an extension of
time to accommodate providing class notice.
The nature of suit states Statutory Actions.[CC]
D2C LLC: Martinez Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mauricio Martinez and
others, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. D2C, LLC doing business as Univision NOW, Case No.
1:23-cv-21394-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Robert Scola, Jr.
entered an order:
-- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and
-- denying as moot Univision's motion to strike.
In sum, the Court finds the new evidence and arguments springing
therefrom are improperly submitted in reply, denying Univision a
fair chance of fully addressing them in its opposition and
resulting in an unnecessary multiplication of these proceedings.
Accordingly, the Court declines to consider them.
Conversely, even if the Court did consider them, the new evidence
and argument fail, in any event, to help establish numerosity.
Either way, Univision's motion to strike that new evidence and
argument (or, alternatively, for leave to file a sur-reply) is
rendered moot.
The Plaintiffs, in this putative class-action case, complain that
the Defendant violated the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA') by
disclosing to Meta Platforms, Inc. information personally linking
them to specific videos they had requested or obtained through
Univision's website.
In pursuing redress under the Act, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a
class they define as follows:
"All persons in the United States who purchased a subscription
to
Univision NOW, requested or obtained prerecorded video
materials
or services on Univision NOW’s website, used Facebook during
the
time the Pixel was active on Univision NOW’s website from
April
13, 2021[,] through May 8, 2023, and whose Personal Viewing
Information Univision NOW disclosed to Meta."
Univision is an online video-streaming service that offers both
livestream access to broadcast networks and video-on-demand
(prerecorded) content.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t5x65Q at no extra
charge.[CC]
DANONE NORTH: Sued Over Failure to Provide Wage Statements
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Saucedo, individuals, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. DANONE NORTH AMERICA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV22448 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 30, 2024), is
brought pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
("PAGA"), Cal Labor Code as a result of the Defendants' failure to
provide wage statements.
The Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of
failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements and issuing
inaccurate employment documents. Defendant is therefore liable for
civil penalties under the Cal. Labor Code, including the PAGA. The
Defendant knowingly and intentionally failed to provide timely,
accurate, itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and the aggrieved
employees in accordance with Labor Code and keep accurate records,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Technician (W3)-Quality
Assurance- Technician –Quality Control, in Chatsworth,
California.
DANONE NORTH AMERICA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION is, on information
and belief, a Delaware corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, Esq. SBN 146621
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Phone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
Email: sahagii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
DARREN INDYKE: Bid to Compel Klein to Comply with Subpoena Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE 3, v. DARREN K.
INDYKE and RICHARD KAHN, Case No. 1:24-cv-01204-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to compel non-party Bella Klein to
comply with the Plaintiff's subpoena
-- The Plaintiff's corresponding motion to seal the motion, is
granted.
-- The Court reserves judgment on defendants' motion to compel
non-
party Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF") to comply with
defendants' subpoena.
-- The parties shall meet and confer by Friday, Oct. 4, 2024, to
see
if they can find a workable solution to get defendants the
information they need to prepare their opposition to
plaintiff’s
motion for class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pmImaY at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAVID TAX: Class Cert Filing in Iverson Extended to Jan. 15, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Iverson, Larry et al v. J.
David Tax Law, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00718 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Oct.
16, 2023), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order
granting the parties request to move the deadline to file motions
for class certification from Nov. 1, 2024, to Jan. 15, 2025.
The parties explain that they have been working on discovery and
attempting to adjust to the court's August 30, 2024, opinion and
order, but they have encountered some scheduling issues with
depositions and are concerned they will not be able to complete the
necessary discovery before the Nov. 1 deadline.
Running out of time to take discovery normally would not present
good cause to move a briefing deadline. The parties are expected to
plan and prioritize to keep the court's schedule in place. That
said, the parties assure the court that this extension will not
affect other deadlines, and there is some room in the schedule.
With these notes, the court GRANTS the motion.
This moves the class certification deadline as close to the
dispositive motion deadline as the court can manage. The parties
should expect no further extensions of this deadline absent
extraordinary circumstances.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
The Defendant specializes in solving tax problems for people and
businesses.[CC]
DELTA HEALTH: Faces Saxton Suit Over Data Security Failures
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darrel Saxton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-CV-89-DMB-DAS (N.D. Miss., September 24, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to protect the highly sensitive personal
identifiable information and the protected health of information
about its current and former patients.
On January 15, 2024, Defendant was hacked in the data breach. The
Defendant injured at least 216, 532 persons--via the exposure of
their PII/PHI--in the data breach. And yet, the Defendant waited
over until September 6, 2024, before it began notifying the
class--a full 229 days after Defendant discovered its data breach.
Moreover, the Defendant's failure to promptly and properly notify
Plaintiff and Class members of the data breach exacerbated
Plaintiff and Class members' injury by depriving them of the
earliest ability to take appropriate measures to protect their
PII/PHI and take other necessary steps to mitigate the harm caused
by the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion
of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and for
declaratory judgment.
Headquartered in Greenville, MS, Delta Health System provides
healthcare services in the tri-state Delta Region. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Matthew Eichelberger, Esq.
EICHELBERGER LAW FIRM, PLLC
1640 Lelia Dr, Ste 120
Jackson, MS 39216
Telephone: (601) 292-7940
Facsimile: (601) 510-9103
DELTONA, FL: Court Certifies Class Definition in Anson Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIAN ANSON, et al., v.
CITY OF DELTONA, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Case No.
6:23-cv-00766-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
-- Certifying the following definition of the class:
"All owners of property within Volusia County, including
property
located in the Stone Island community, whose property was used,
and damaged or destroyed, under the Deltona Interconnect
Program,
on or after Sept. 29, 2022;"
-- appoint Drucella Faulk, Annette Duke, Linda Hohmann, and Carole
Coleman as Class Representatives, and
-- appoint Thomas C. Allison, P.A. as Lead Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs first filed their Class Action Complaint on March
17, 2023, in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in
and for Volusia County, Florida.
On April 27, 2023, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The Court's most recent Case Management Order (third amended) was
entered on June 13, 2024.
Deltona is located on the northern shore of Lake Monroe.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dFOusN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Bernard Doyle, Esq.
SEIBANE DOYLE, PLLC
913 Mabbette Street
Kissimmee, FL 34741
Telephone: (407) 906-2777
E-mail: andrew@sd-firm.com
micky@sd-firm.com
- and -
Thomas C. Allison, Esq.
THOMAS C. ALLISON, P.A.
121 S. Orange Ave., Suite 840
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 720-7642
Direct: (407) 378-4198
Facsimile: (407) 378-7855
E-mail: thomas@allisonpa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Dale A. Scott, Esq.
ROPER, P.A.
2707 E. Jefferson St.
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 897-5150
Facsimile: (407) 897-3332
E-mail: dscott@roperpa.com
ehemphill@roperpa.com
DETROIT, MI: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH HOWARD, et al., v.
THE CITY OF DETROIT, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10382-NGE-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Nancy Edmunds entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
This case will proceed on behalf of the three remaining plaintiffs
only.
The Court finds that certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is not
appropriate here.
In sum, the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proving that
the proposed class and subclasses satisfy Rule.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of homeowners in
the City of Detroit who received untimely or otherwise inadequate
notice of the property tax assessments in 2017 (the "Detroit
Homeowners Class").
The Plaintiff Stevenson also seeks to represent:
-- the "Overpaying Subclass"
Detroit homeowners whose appeal rights were thwarted by
improper
notice and who are currently or were unlawfully over-assessed
in
2017 by the City of Detroit, resulting in the overpayment of
property taxes;
-- the "Delinquent Subclass"
Detroit homeowners who were over-assessed and received
deficient
and untimely notice by the Detroit Defendants and are
considered
delinquent on their property taxes for 2017, resulting in the
accumulation of delinquency fines and fees; and
-- the "Foreclosure Subclass"
Detroit homeowners who were given improper notice and over-
assessed by the Detroit Defendants and are delinquent on their
property taxes for 2017, subjecting them to foreclosure by
Wayne
County.
The Plaintiffs William and Billie Hickey and Jeffrey Stevenson, who
are Detroit homeowners, allege that their due process rights under
the United States and Michigan Constitutions were violated by the
City of Detroit and other local and state entities when they
received purportedly untimely and deficient property tax assessment
notices in 2017.
Detroit is the largest city in the midwestern state of Michigan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YDpVTE at no extra
charge.[CC]
DOMINIC HEALTH: Bids to Restrict Documents in Boswell OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENDA BOSWELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ST.
DOMINIC HEALTH SERVICES, INC. and FRANCISCAN MISSIONARIES OF OUR
LADY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00151-CWR-LGI (S.D.
Miss.), the Hon. Judge Carlton Reeves entered an order granting the
motions to restrict documents.
-- Defendants' motion for leave to file a sur-reply is also
granted.
-- Plaintiff's motion to certify a collective is granted in part.
-- The Court limits this collective action to "Defendants'
healthcare
employees in Mississippi and Louisiana who were eligible for
overtime compensation through the 8 and 80 system between Dec.
1,
2021, and Jan. 31, 2022."
The Plaintiff's motion to toll the statute of limitations is
denied.
After reviewing her unopposed motion to restrict and the proposed
restricted documents, the Court finds that Boswell’s asserted
privacy interest in her financial records and communication with
her employer outweighs the public's common law right of access to
the memorandum and proposed exhibits.
Accordingly, her motion is granted, and these documents will be
limited to review by the Court and counsel for the parties. Boswell
is directed to deliver these documents to the Clerk of Court.
The Court is not persuaded that the motion to transfer venue,
petition for a writ of mandamus, or motion for collective
certification constitutes an extraordinary circumstance that
prevented timely filing. Plaintiff has not presented evidence that
any potential opt-in plaintiff was precluded from filing suit
because of the current litigation.
In the absence of evidence that Defendants misled Plaintiff or that
potential opt-in plaintiffs have been barred from asserting their
rights, the Court does not find that the present situation warrants
equitable tolling.
On Feb. 28, 2023, she filed this putative collective action
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), against
the Defendants.
Boswell's allegations stem from a ransomware attack. Boswell
alleges that she along with over 14,000 of Defendants' non-exempt
employees were affected. She says some employees were not paid on
time, some employees were paid less than the wages to which they
were entitled1, and some employees did not receive payment at all.
The Plaintiff Boswell is a registered nurse at St. Dominic Hospital
in Jackson, Mississippi.
Saint Dominic operates as a non-profit organization.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1a3WB7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
EBERLY COMPANY: Adams Sues Over Failure to Maintain Elevators
-------------------------------------------------------------
Latoya L. Adams, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated v. THE EBERLY COMPANY, in their official and individual
capacity, also known as Leslie Morales and Paula Hasting, and,
Daniel Flower, Case No. CV24-7242-SPG (C.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2024),
is brought for Violations of Fair Housing Amendments Act, the
Rehabilitation Act, Fair Employment & Housing Act, California
Government Code, Unruh Civil Rights Act as a result of the
Defendants' failure to maintain the elevators that serve their
apartments.
Federal and State laws guarantee equal use and enjoyment
ofgovernment funded housing for tenants with disabilities,
including safe, functional elevators that serve that housing.
Plaintiffs are low-income seniors with mobility disabilities who
live on upper levels of a fifteen-floor building served by two
elevators. Because of their disabilities, Plaintiffs rely on the
elevators to access their homes and community, and to receive
emergency medical services.
Yet the defendants refuse to maintain the elevators for at least 2
years since opening its doors for low in-come housing. As a result,
in the past 2 years one elevator has been completely out of service
and the other elevator has been out of service more than 50% of the
time.
The Plaintiffs and other tenants with disabilities are functionally
confined to-or sometimes bared from-their upper-floor apartments.
They are unable to access common amenities and to visit friends on
other floors. Several have been trapped in the elevators
themselves. Some have had to call paramedics when they become
unable to continue going up stairs, trying to navigate around
elevator malfunctions. There has been several fires at the
apartments, causing a serious safety risk for everyone in the
building.
The Defendants are aware of the repeated danger to which they
subject their disabled tenants and all tenants in general.
Plaintiffs have repeatedly notified Defendants about the elevator
malfunctions and their hazardous impact upon tenants with
disabilities. Yet Defendants refuse to take the necessary steps to
provide a functional elevator system, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a female with a mental disability and because of
personal injury that has occurred on this premise, suffers extreme
anxiety from having to use the stairs.
The Eberly Company provides housing for the senior and
disabled.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
EI DU PONT: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Dew
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES S. DEW, et al., v.
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, et al. Case No.
5:18-cv-00073-D (EDNC), the Hon. Judge James Dever III entered an
order:
-- denying Defendants' motion to exclude the report and testimony
of
Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Adam Domanski,
-- denying Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the report and testimony
of
Defendants' expert Dr. Brent Finley, and
-- denying Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Branch's
private nuisance claim
The court will not use Rule 702 to settle this technical squabble
between experts. Defendants may press Dr. Domanski on his findings
during cross examination and present their own expert witness.
Moreover, the mere presence of statistical insignificance does not,
by itself, warrant exclusion under Rule 702. See, e.:&, In re
Lipitor, 892 F.3d at 641. Accordingly, the court declines to
exclude Dr. Domanski's report and testimony on this basis.
The Plaintiffs allege that defendants discharged toxic chemicals
from the Fayetteville Works facility into the Cape Fear River and
surrounding air, soil, and groundwater.
E.I. DuPont is an American multinational chemical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3zdCUA at no extra
charge.[CC]
ELITE AUTO: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baddley v. Elite Auto
Services of Orlando, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-01778 (M.D. Fla., Filed
Oct. 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order
directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a
motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable
deadlines in their case management report.
-- The deadlines should include a deadline for
(1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and
defendant;
(2) discovery - class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
ENROLL CONFIDENTLY: Darosa Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltazar Darosa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Enroll Confidently, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02658-ESW
(D. Ariz., Oct. 1, 2024), is brought for damages with respect to
Enroll Confidently for its failure to exercise reasonable care in
securing and safeguarding enrollees' sensitive personal
data--including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, state identification numbers, financial
account information, health insurance information, medical
information ("PII", "PHI", or "Private Information").
This class action is brought on behalf of enrollees whose sensitive
PHI was stolen by cybercriminals in a cyber-attack on Enroll
Confidently's systems that took place on or around February 13,
2024, and which resulted in the access and exfiltration of
sensitive patient information (the "Data Breach").
Enroll Confidently reported to Plaintiff and members of the
putative "Class" that information compromised in the Data Breach
included their PII/PHI. As a result of the Data Breach and
Defendant's failure to promptly notify Plaintiff and Class members
of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members have experienced
and will experience various types of misuse of their PHI in the
coming months and years, including but not limited to, unauthorized
credit card charges, unauthorized access to email accounts,
identity theft, and other fraudulent use of their Private
Information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff believes that his employer uses or has used
Defendant's services at some point.
Enroll Confidently is a for-profit corporation that provides
employee benefits management and guidance for employers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7508 North 59th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301
Phone: (602) 730-7100
Fax: (602) 794-6956
Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
EQUIFAX INC: Stolfat Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXEI STOLFAT, V.
EQUIFAX, INC., TRANSUNION, LLC., EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC, Case No. 9:24-cv-80856-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying case as class action pursuant to
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The case involves Defendants who are alleged to have systematically
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Defendants
failed to maintain accurate consumer credit records, investigate
disputed inaccuracies properly, and remove derogatory a inaccurate
information, leading to significant harm for the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated.
Equifax is an American multinational consumer credit reporting
agency headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia and is one of the three
largest consumer credit reporting agencies, along with Experian and
TransUnion.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xmfSXD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se:
Alexei Stolfat, Esq.
250 Seminole Ave, Apt 1
Palm Beach, 1133480
Telephone: (561) 657-7900
E-mail: stolfat@usa.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ritika Singh, Esq.
QUILING, SELANDER, LOWNDS, WINSLETT & MOSER, P.C.
6900 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 800
Plano, TX 75024
Telephone: (214) 560-5442
Facsimile: (214) 871-2111
E-mail: rsingh@qslwm.com
- and -
Noah Dipasquale, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
1001 HaxallPoint
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804)697-1266
E-mail: noah.dipasquale@troutman.com
- and -
Paige Vacante, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone:(312)460-5000
Facsimile:(312)460-7000
E-mail: pvacante@seyfarth.com
EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Plaintiffs' Bid for More Time to File Reply OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLI LEWIS, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG,
LLC, Case No. (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise Flanagan entered an
order granting the "Plaintiff's consent motion for extension of
time to reply to defendant's opposition for class certification"
filed Sept. 30, 2024.
The Plaintiff shall have up to and including Oct. 24, 2024, to
respond to Defendant's opposition for class certification.
Equity provides HOA and association collections solutions for
community associations driven by technology and proactive
outreach.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xUUufY at no extra
charge.[CC]
EZELL EXCAVATING: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Oct. 10
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller v. Ezell Excavating
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02008 (C.D. Ill., Filed Jan 10,
2023), the Court entered an order setting a hearing on the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion for conditional class certification,
approval of class action settlement for Oct. 10, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
FACEAPP INC: Bids to Compel Arbitration in Purchase Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois grants the Defendants' motions to
compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled CHELSEA PURCHASE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. FACEAPP INC. and FACEAPP TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02735-SPM (S.D. Ill.).
Plaintiff Purchase is a resident of St. Clair County, Illinois. FA
is a domestic corporation with its headquarters in Delaware. FTL is
a foreign corporation with its headquarters in Cyprus.
Plaintiff Chelsea Purchase brings a purported class action against
Defendants FaceApp Inc. ("FA"), and FaceApp Technology Limited
("FTL") for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy
Act ("BIPA"). Pending before the Court are two motions that were
originally filed as Motions to Compel Arbitration or,
alternatively, to Dismiss. However, on Aug. 19, 2024, the
Defendants withdrew the motions to dismiss, leaving only the issue
of arbitration to the Court.
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum & Order, the Court
grants the motions to compel arbitration, and further stays this
case pending the outcome of the arbitration.
On Aug. 8, 2023, Purchase filed this class action complaint in
order to hold the Defendants accountable for their BIPA violations
and to recover statutory damages for the unauthorized collection,
storage, and use of their biometric information in violation of
BIPA. Within the complaint, Purchase identified the following
proposed class:
All persons who, while residing in Illinois, had their
biometric identifiers collected, captured, received, or
otherwise obtained by FaceApp.
On Oct. 13, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation regarding
pleading timeline and potential briefing schedule. On Oct. 17,
2023, the Court granted the extensions of time and entered the
proposed schedule.
On Nov. 13, 2023, FA filed its motion to compel arbitration or,
alternatively, to dismiss, along with memorandum of law and two
supporting affidavits. Within the motion, FA contends that there
are many deficiencies in Purchase's complaint; however, the main
argument is that Purchase agreed to submit any claims to "binding
and final arbitration". FA also argues that Purchase agreed that
she would not pursue any claims as a plaintiff in a class action
and that BIPA is inapplicable.
On Jan. 18, 2024, following an extension of time, Purchase filed
her memorandum in opposition to FA's motion to compel arbitration
or, alternatively, to dismiss the complaint. Purchase asserted that
she never agreed to arbitrate any of her claims and that FA failed
to meet its burden to show an agreement. Purchase also argued that
the complaint is plausible on its face so the motion to dismiss
must be denied.
On Feb. 1, 2024, FA filed a reply in support of its motion, raising
three main arguments. First, FA contended that there was an
agreement to arbitrate. Second, FA contended that dismissal was
appropriate because the complaint is not plausible on its face.
Third, FA contended that Purchase waived class claims.
On Feb. 26, 2024, FTL filed its motion to compel arbitration or,
alternatively, to dismiss the complaint, along with incorporated
memorandum of law and supporting affidavit. Many of the arguments
surrounding arbitration are similar to those raised by FA, but the
arguments on dismissal vary in that FTL contends that this Court
has neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction over it.
On March 28, 2024, Purchase filed a memorandum in opposition to
FTL's motion incorporating the arguments raised against compelling
arbitration. With respect to FTL's argument regarding dismissal on
jurisdictional grounds, Purchase requested limited jurisdictional
discovery and a stay of 90 days to do so.
On April 11, 2024, FTL filed its reply. First and foremost, FTL
claimed that Purchase's arguments were flawed and that arbitration
should be compelled. FTL further claimed that the Court did not
even need to reach the jurisdictional argument because of the
binding and valid arbitration agreement.
On April 29, 2024, a hearing was held on the motions. At that time,
the parties argued their respective positions as to arbitration.
During the hearing, Purchase reiterated her request to conduct
limited discovery. Consequently, on May 2, 2024, Purchase was
granted leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery;
therefore, this matter was stayed and the parties were ordered to
provide the Court with a status update before July 1, 2024.
On July 1, 2024, the parties submitted a status report advising
that jurisdictional discovery had not yet been propounded, although
the Plaintiff advised that she would formally tender jurisdictional
discovery to the Defendants within twenty-one (21) days. The next
day, July 2, 2024, the Court expressed its frustration with the
delay -- admonishing that the case was stayed 60 days prior and
ordering Purchase to propound discovery within 10 days, or by July
12, 2024. The parties were further ordered to provide another
status report to the Court in six weeks.
On Aug. 19, 2024, the parties submitted another status report,
within which the Defendants withdrew the alternatives to the
motions to compel, i.e., the motions to dismiss. Accordingly, on
Aug. 23, 2024, the stay was lifted and the parties were granted ten
(10) days within which they could file a short brief supplementing
their positions regarding the pending motions to compel
arbitration.
On Sept. 3, 2024, Purchase filed her supplemental brief against
arbitration. On that same date, the Defendants filed their
supplemental brief in support of their motions. The Defendants
argued that the motions to compel arbitration should be granted
while Purchase argued that the motions should be denied because
genuine issues of fact precluded compelling arbitration.
In 2017, the Defendants launched FaceApp, a photo and video editing
application available for download through iOS and Android devices.
Purchase contends that the U.S. government expressed concern over
FaceApp and the Defendants' abuse of U.S. consumer privacy rights,
including those covered by BIPA.
Ms. Purchase further contends that the Defendants, in direct
violation of the prongs of BIPA, have and/or are "actively
collecting, storing, and using the biometric information of
millions of individuals without any written notice or informed
written consent". As such, Purchase filed this action individually
and on behalf of a proposed class to hold the Defendants
accountable for their BIPA violations and to recover statutory
damages for the unauthorized collection, storage, and use of their
biometric information in violation of BIPA.
The Plaintiff has been a user of FaceApp for several years and has
uploaded numerous photographs that include images of her face. She
claimed that FaceApp created biometric identifiers and/or
information of her face that it used and stored without her
authorization. She further claimed that she did not have notice
that FaceApp would collect, store or use her biometric information
and denied providing informed consent, in writing or otherwise.
In addition to asserting her own cause of action, Purchase's
lawsuit is also brought pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following
proposed class: All persons who, while residing in Illinois, had
their biometric identifiers collected, captured, received, or
otherwise obtained by FaceApp.
The Defendants contend that arbitration must be compelled because
they have provided evidence that (1) Purchase entered into a
written agreement to arbitrate (2) Purchase's BIPA claims fall
within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and, (3) that
Purchase has refused to arbitrate.
Ms. Purchase submitted numerous objections to arbitration. She
first argued that general issues of fact exist to preclude
arbitration -- specifically because the Defendants have published
three distinct Terms of Use ("TOU") with dates in 2017, 2019, and
2023, respectively, and there is no evidence as to which applies in
this case. She then claimed that there was no mutual assent,
raising the argument that this was a "browsewrap" agreement, not a
"clickwrap" agreement. She also asserted that ambiguities preclude
arbitration. Finally, she contended that, even if an arbitration
clause exists, her claims are not within the scope of said
agreement.
Based upon the totality of the evidence -- the declaration of
Jayant Ravalis, the photographs, as well as the hearing testimony
-- the Court finds the agreement at issue to be a hybridwrap. After
conducting a fact intensive objective inquiry, the Court further
finds that the Defendants provided Purchase with reasonable notice
that her use of the application constituted assent to an agreement.
Indeed, the language itself clearly stated that further use
constituted her assent to the privacy policy and TOU, both of which
were set forth via hyperlink in a bold (and underlined for iOS
users) font. The click button to start was also conspicuously blue
it was right above the hyperlinks.
Judge McGlynn holds that the Defendants have satisfied the first
step of the inquiry -- Purchase entered into a written agreement to
arbitrate her claims.
Although Purchase did not address the issue on refusal to
arbitrate, Judge McGlynn notes that it is the final element under
the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") to compel arbitration and her
actions convey refusal. The Defendants have asserted that Purchase
refused to arbitrate her claims, and the Court concurs.
As stated previously, defense counsel has withdrawn the alternative
motions to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court will not address said
arguments. The Court will stay further proceedings in this matter
pending a decision from the arbitrator.
For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum & Order, the Court
grants the Defendants' Motions to Compel Arbitration, but the
alternative Motions to Dismiss are terminated as moot due to
withdrawal by defense counsel. As set forth infra, all further
proceedings in this matter are stayed pending arbitration. The
parties are directed to file a report advising the Court of the
status of the arbitration proceeding on or before April 1, 2025.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated Sept. 12,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3zpk3xbm from
PacerMonitor.com.
FLIGHTAWARE LLC: Stokar Files Suit in S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FlightAware, LLC. The
case is styled as Ellen Stokar, on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all other similarly situated individuals v. FlightAware, LLC,
Case No. 4:24-cv-03244 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 29, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
FlightAware -- http://www.flightaware.com/-- is an American
multi-national technology company that provides real-time,
historical, and predictive flight tracking data and products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
212 W. Spring Valley Road
Richardson, TX 75081
Phone: (214) 696-1100
Fax: (214) 740-0114
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
FOODLINER INC: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foodliner, Inc. The
case is styled as Israel Gomez, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Foodliner, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0010867 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug.
30, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Foodliner -- https://foodliner.com/ -- offers customized
transportation of dry bulk and liquid food products throughout
North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
FRED MEYER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Shields Due August 11, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY SHIELDS, v. FRED
MEYER STORES INC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01455-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Tana Lin entered an order setting class certification
briefing and other pretrial related dates:
Event Date
Deadline for joining additional parties Dec. 31, 2024
Deadline for filing amended pleadings Jan. 31, 2025
Class disclosure of expert testimony due Mar. 31, 2025
Class disclosure of rebuttal expert Apr. 14, 2025
testimony due
Class expert discovery cutoff Apr. 28, 2025
Class expert exclusion motions due May 12, 2025
Class expert exclusion motion oppositions due May 26, 2025
Class expert exclusion motion reply due June 2, 2025
Class certification discovery cutoff July 18, 2025
Plaintiff's motion for class certification Aug. 11, 2025
to be filed
Defendant's response to class certification Sept. 15, 2025
motion to be filed
Plaintiff's reply to class certification Oct. 20, 2025
motion to be filed
Fred Meyer is an American chain of hypermarket superstores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vs1Kmn at no extra
charge.[CC]
FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Bid for Class Cert. in Sievertsen Due Oct. 25
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY SIEVERTSEN AND
THOMAS GOMEZ, v. FREEPORT-MCMORAN INCORPORATED, Case No.
2:24-cv-01749-JCG (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves
entered a case management order as follows:
1. The Parties shall submit a Discovery Confidentiality Order
for
the Court's approval on or before Oct. 25, 2024.
2. Deadline for Joining Parties, Amending Pleadings, and Filing
Supplemental Pleadings. The deadline for joining parties,
amending pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings is
Nov.
15, 2024.
3. Motions for Class Certification, Conditional Certification,
and
Decertification.
a. Any Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or
before Oct. 31, 2025.
b. Any Motion for Conditional Class Certification shall be
filed
on or before March 28, 2025.
c. Any Motion for Decertification shall be filed on or before
Nov. 28, 2025.
4. Class Expert Disclosures and Reports.
a. The Parties shall provide full and complete Class Expert
Disclosures and Reports, as required by Rule
26(a)(2)(A)–(C)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on or before Nov.
14, 2025.
b. Class Rebuttal Expert Disclosures and Reports, if any,
shall
be made no later than Dec. 5, 2025.
5. The deadline for the completion of fact discovery, including
discovery by subpoena, shall be Oct. 10, 2025.
Freeport-McMoRan is an American mining company based in the
Freeport-McMoRan Center, in Phoenix, Arizona.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YwH6dD at no extra
charge.[CC]
FREMONT TRANS: Jean Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLO JEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FREMONT TRANS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09266 (N.D. Ill., October 1, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for prohibited deductions, failure to
reimburse employee expenses, and failure to pay timely wages in
violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and
failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a truck driver from in or
about June 2024 until in or about July 2024.
Fremont Trans Inc. is a trucking company located in Downers Grove,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James B. Zouras, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Brook S. Lane, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
Email: brook@fairworklaw.com
GABB WIRELESS: Senior Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GABB WIRELESS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07317 (S.D.N.Y., September 27, 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://gabb.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text
equivalent, empty links that contain no text causing the function
or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user, redundant
links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and linked
images missing alt-text, 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.
Gabb Wireless, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
GEN DIGITAL: Bid for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lau, et al., v. Gen.
Digital Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-08981 (N.D. Cal., Filed Dec.
19, 2022), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order denying
motion for extension of time to complete discovery.
-- The motion is denied without prejudice to being renewed if
additional discovery is authorized and cannot be completed
before
the cut-off date.
Gen Digital represents that it has not produced source code and
other items because the requested discovery is beyond the scope of
the claims, and that the third parties are unlikely to be ordered
to produce additional materials.
If additional discovery is in fact not allowed, there is no reason
to move the discovery deadlines.
However, if Gen Digital is wrong and the motions to compel
discovery are granted, the Court is inclined to continue the fact
discovery cut-off, and to move the summary judgment hearing to the
same date as the class certification hearing.
The suit alleges violation of the statutory actions.
Gen Digital is a multinational software company co-headquartered in
Tempe, Arizona and Prague, Czech Republic. The company provides
cybersecurity software and services.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Human Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daniel Human, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No.
24SL-CC01355 was removed from the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Aug. 30, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-01193.
The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendant has
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Theodore W. Seitz, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Phone: (517) 374-9100
Email: TSeitz@dykema.com
- and -
John M. Thomas, Esq.
Krista L. Lenart, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
2723 S. State St., Ste. 400
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Phone: (734) 214-7676
Email: klenart@dykema.com
- and -
Bharat Varadachari, Esq.
HEPLERBROOM LLC
701 Market Street, Suite 1400
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: 314-480-4153
Email: Bharat.varadachari@heplerbroom.com
GEORGE ELECTRIC: Faces Avalos Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT A. AVALOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEORGE ELECTRIC COMPANY and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV25162 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., September 30, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorney General Act including failure to pay minimum wage for all
hours worked, failure to pay required overtime, failure to provide
compliant meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods,
failure to provide and maintain compliant wage statements, and
failure to reimburse necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt employee from on or around June 10, 2024, until on or
around July 18, 2024.
George Electric Company is a construction company based in
Northridge, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bardia Aaron Akhavan, Esq.
AKHAVAN & ASSOCIATES
15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1720
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (855) 463-4733
Email: Bardia@baalaw.com
- and -
Navid Barahmand, Esq.
BARAHMAND LAW GROUP
7324 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite B
Van Nuys, CA 91405
Telephone: (818) 574-3355
Email: navid@barahmandlaw.com
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Ruiz and Wong Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JIMY RUIZ and ALLAN WONG, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC d/b/a Haleon,
a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
C24-02236, was removed from the the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-01706-L-BJC to the proceeding.
The case asserts claims for violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of express
warranty.
Headquartered in New Jersey, Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare
Holdings, (US) LLC manufactures, markets and/or distributes
pharmaceutical products. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
E-mail: megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com
- and -
J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq.
Franco A. Corrado, Esq.
2222 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3007
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
E-mail: gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com
franco.corrado@morganlewis.com
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Ruiz Sues Over False Advertisement
------------------------------------------------------------
Jimy Ruiz and Allan Wong, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS
(US) LLC d/b/a Haleon, a Delaware limited liability company, Case
No. C24-02236 (Cal. Super. Ct., Costa Cty., Aug. 21, 2024), is
brought alleging that its Emergen-C dietary supplements (Raspberry,
Super Orange, Tangerine, Cranberry Pomegranate, Pink Lemonade,
Strawberry Kiwi, and Tropical flavors) (collectively, "the
Products"), which are formulated, manufactured, packaged, labeled,
advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and
falsely advertised because they contain artificial flavoring.
Haleon is solely responsible for the contents of the Products'
labelling. The front label (or "principal display panel") of all
flavors of the Products prominently state that they contain
"Natural Flavors" and "Natural Fruit Flavors," using bolded type
and graphical call-outs or insets to highlight these claims.
All flavors of the Products use depictions of fruits on the front
label, as shown above, to reinforce the natural flavoring claim
that is being made. A reasonable consumer would understand from
these textual and graphical elements on the labels that the
Products contain only natural flavorings.
These statements are false and/or misleading. All of the Products
contain an ingredient known as "malic acid" which is used as a
flavoring in the Products. The form of malic acid used in these
Products is artificial.
The Products have none of the required disclosures regarding the
use of artificial flavors. In fact, the Products' front and back
labels bear the false and deceptive statements that they contain
only "Natural Flavors" and "Natural Fruit Flavors," which are
reinforced by depictions of fruits.
The Plaintiffs reasonably relied on these label statements such
that they would not have purchased the Products from Defendant if
the truth about the Products was known, or would have only been
willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the Products had
they known that Defendant's representations regarding flavoring
were false and misleading, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendants products.
Haleon formulates, manufactures, and sells Emergen-C, a drink mix
powder that purports to contain 1,000 mg of Vitamin C per serving.
They are marketed as providing immune system support,
anti-oxidants, and other nutrients that support health and
wellness.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Phone: 858.414.7465
Fax: 858.300.5137
Email: legal@cweller.com
HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Partridge Suit Moved to Pierce County Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DUANE PARTRIDGE, Plaintiff v. HEARTLAND
EXPRESS INC. OF IOWA, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-05486-DGE (W.D.
Wash.), Judge David G. Estudillo of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, remands the action to
Pierce County Superior Court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
The case was removed to the Court on June 20, 2024. Before the
Court is Plaintiff Duane Partridge's motion to remand, filed on
Aug. 8, 2024. Defendant Heartland Express, Inc. of Iowa filed its
opposition on Sept. 3, 2024, which the Plaintiff replied to on
Sept. 10, 2024.
On May 20, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this class action in Pierce
County Superior Court, alleging that the Defendant violated the
Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA"), Washington
Revised Code Section 49.58.110, by failing to disclose the wage
scale and salary range in its job postings.
Judge Estudillo notes that the facts alleged in the Plaintiff's
complaint are sparse. The Plaintiff states that in or around April
2023, he applied for a job opening in Washington State with the
Defendant. He asserts that the Defendant's job postings do not
disclose the wage scale, salary range, or a general description of
the benefits or other compensation to be offered and, thus, that he
lost valuable time applying for a job with the Defendant for which
the wage scale or salary range was not disclosed.
The Plaintiff claims to represent "hundreds" of individuals, who
applied for a job opening in the State of Washington with the
Defendant between Jan. 1, 2023, and the present. He claims that as
a result of his and Class Members' inability to evaluate the pay
for the position, negotiate that pay, and compare that pay to other
available positions in the marketplace, he and Class Members were
harmed. He seeks declaratory judgment, statutory damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees.
The Defendant removed the case to the Court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). The
Plaintiff then filed the instant motion to remand, asserting that
he himself lacks standing in this Court.
To support his argument, the Plaintiff points out that the language
of his complaint and EPOA claim is "virtually identical to the
complaints and EPOA claims filed in" eight cases recently remanded
by courts in this district for lack of standing. Indeed, in one
recent such order, Judge Rothstein noted that the matter was "one
of 27 lawsuits with virtually identical [EPOA] complaints filed in
King County Superior Court and subsequently removed to this
Court."
Judge Estudillo finds that the conclusory statements in the
Plaintiff's complaint do not support a finding that the Defendant's
lack of disclosure caused him the sort of "real harm" the EPOA was
designed to prevent. In full, the Plaintiff asserts three
boilerplate claims: that he "applied for a job opening" without a
listed salary range, that he lost "valuable time" in doing so, and
that his inability to evaluate the pay for the position, negotiate
that pay, and compare that pay harmed him.
The Plaintiff does not allege that he was offered employment or an
interview. Thus, Judge Estudillo opines, the Plaintiff does not
suggest that the deprivation of information compromised his
bargaining power in pay negotiations, placed him at a disadvantage
relative to other applicants, or resulted in him having to exit a
lengthy interview process after learning the pay was insufficient
for his needs.
Judge Estudillo opines that the Defendants' attempt to inject
additional factual information into this matter to support a
finding of standing is futile, as the Defendants' declarations
about the time-intensive nature of its job application process are
not part of the Plaintiff's complaint. The Defendant's postulations
of what injury may have happened to the Plaintiff are even further
from the mark, Judge Estudillo adds, as it is the Plaintiff himself
who strenuously denies meeting the Article III standing
requirement.
Judge Estudillo holds that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to
identify a concrete and particularized injury sufficient to give
rise to Article III standing. Without standing, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction. The case must, therefore, be
remanded.
The Court concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
matter because the Plaintiff's complaint does not allege a concrete
harm sufficient to satisfy Article III standing. Because the Court
may not preside over this matter, it remands the matter to Pierce
County Superior Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4bed9d5e from PacerMonitor.com.
HERSHEY COMPANY: Nutrient Content Claims "False," Escobar Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA ESCOBAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-06844 (N.D. Cal., September 30, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law and for unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its LILY'S brand
food products. The Defendant prominently labels its products with
nutrient content claims, such as "LESS SUGAR" and "No Sugar Added."
However, the Defendant's use of nutrient content claims is
unlawful, misleading, and deceptive because its products contain
high amounts of unsafe fats which increase the risk of severe
health issues, including coronary heart disease. Had the Plaintiff
and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not
have purchased the products or would have paid less for them, the
suit alleges.
The Hershey Company is a manufacturer of consumer food products,
with its principal place of business in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq.
POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
3391 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 523-7706
Email: carolinemcglamry@pmkm.com
HERTZ CORPORATION: Martin Sues Over Age Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------
Vince Martin, an individual, and other similarly situated v. THE
HERTZ CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; PHILIP TABARES, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV25585
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 1, 2024), is brought as a
result of age discrimination in violation of the FEHA; disability
discrimination in violation of the FEHA; failure to accommodate in
violation of the FEHA; failure to engage in the interactive
process; retaliation in violation of the FEHA; failure to
investigate and prevent in violation of the FEHA; wrongful
termination in violation of public policy; violation of California
Labor Code.
The Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants
discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his age,
disability, and complaining of discrimination, harassment, and
retaliation; retaliated against Plaintiff for his age, disability,
and complaining Of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation and
requesting accommodations. Additionally, Plaintiff is informed and
believes that Defendants failed to prevent the discrimination and
retaliation from occurring.
As a result of defendants harassing and discriminatory treatment
towards him and his termination, Plaintiff has suffered economic
and non-economic damages, including, but not limited to,
depression, anxiety, lack of sleep, low self-esteem, frustration,
and other emotional distress symptoms, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is 59 years old as of the fling of this complaint and
began his employment as a Shuttle Driver with the Defendant.
HERTZ CORPORATION is a Delaware corporation which also conducts
business in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jake D. Finkel, Esq.
Sheryl L. Marx, Esq.
THE FINKEL FIRM
3470 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 830
Los Angeles, CA 90010Phi
Phone: (213) 787-7411
Fax: (323) 916-0521
Email: jake@finkelfirm.com
sheryl@finkelfirm.com
HOMESITE GROUP: Underpays Customer Sales Reps, Sigler Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANA SIGLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOMESITE GROUP INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-12477-DJC (D. Mass., September 27, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay for all hours
worked, including overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Arizona Wage Statute and for unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
customer sales representative from approximately February 2023 to
October 2023.
Homesite Group Incorporated is a property and casualty insurance
company, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP
585 Boylston St.
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 536-1800
Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
Email: pgordon@gordonllp.com
khurley@gordonllp.com
- and -
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
50 Public Square, Suite 1900
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
Strongsville, OH 44136
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
Email: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Class of Students in Adavenaixx
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANEL ADAVENAIXX,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, v. HOWARD
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00663-DLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge
Dabney Friedrich entered a final judgment and order:
1. The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the
following
class (Settlement Class):
"All Howard students enrolled in the Spring 2020 Semester who
did
not withdraw by March 16, 2020 for whom any amount of tuition
and/or fees was paid to Howard from any source other than a
scholarship, grant, or tuition remission from Howard, or any
other source that did not require repayment, and whose tuition
and/or fees have not been fully refunded."
Specifically excluded are the following Persons:
(i) Any students who received full scholarships or tuition
remission from Howard or who did not themselves ultimately
pay any tuition or fees for the Spring 2020 Semester
(i.e.,
those whose tuition and fees were paid for by
institutional
aid, tuition benefits, federal/state/local grants,
GI/Yellow
Ribbon benefits, outside scholarships, and/or third-party
sponsorships);
(ii) The University and its officers, trustees and their family
members; (iii) Class Counsel; (iv) The judges who have
presided over the action; and (v) All persons who properly
execute and file a timely opt-out request to be excluded
from
the Settlement Class.
The Court appoints the Settlement Class Representative as the
representative of the Settlement Class. The Court appoints Thomas
J. McKenna and Gregory M. Egleston of Gainey McKenna & Egleston and
L. Timothy Fisher and Neal J. Deckant of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
The Court affirms the appointment of Epiq Class Action & Claims
Solutions, Inc. as Claims Administrator.
Howard University is a private, historically black, federally
chartered research university in Washington, D.C.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5jN27F at no extra
charge.[CC]
I.C. SYSTEM: Fisher Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Consumer Debt
------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC.; MAH ADVISING, PLLC;
MICHAEL HURCKES; and IRONCLAD LAW, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
6:24-cv-01766-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla., September 30, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' attempt to collect a debt they
knew was not legitimate and/or assert a legal right they knew to be
illegitimate and/or otherwise unlawful. According to the complaint,
even after Defendant I.C. System Inc. was provided with a copy of
the unexecuted engagement agreement and the July 8, 2024, invoice
containing the obvious discrepancies, I.C. System Inc. validated
the debt. Even after the Plaintiff informed I.C. System Inc. that
the debt was not legitimate due to the absence of an executed,
written engagement agreement between him and MAH Advising, PLLC and
Defendant I.C. System Inc. continued to assert that they had the
right to collect the full amount and that the debt was legitimate.
As a result of Defendant I.C. System Inc.'s violations, the
Plaintiff has suffered actual damages, including but not limited to
mental suffering, anguish, loss of income, and personal and/or
financial credibility and reputation, says the suit.
I.C. System, Inc. is a debt collector, with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota.
MAH Advising, PLLC is a law firm with its principal place of
business in Tampa, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Light, Esq.
Anthony Gonzalez, Esq.
LIGHT & GONZALEZ, PLLC
8751 W. Broward Blvd., #206
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (754) 900-6545
Facsimile: (754) 203-2700
Email: service@lightgonzalezlaw.com
IHG MANAGEMENT: Martinez Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MARTINEZ, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IHG
MANAGEMENT (MARYLAND) LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company;
INTER- CONTINENTAL HOTELS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation;
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
3:24-cv-00210-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on Nov. 4, 2024, for an Order certifying this case as a class
action against the Defendant.
Specifically, the Plaintiff requests that this Court, pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
A. Certify the Following Class:
Proposed Class
"All current and former non-exempt employees employed by
the
Defendant at one of its hotels within the State of
California,
from Dec. 28, 2019 through the date of class
certification."
B. Certify the following claims as defined in the following
four
separate subclasses:
Overtime Subclass
"All non-exempt hourly hotel employees of the Defendant in
California who worked two shifts in a Work Day totaling more
than 8 hours per day from Dec. 28, 2019 through the date of
class certification and were not paid overtime wages in
accordance with Labor Code section 510 based on the total
hours
worked in the Work Day.
"Work Day" shall refer to the calendar day starting at 12:00
AM
and ending at 11:59 PM.
Regular Rate Subclass
"All non-exempt hourly hotel employees of Defendant in
California who were paid a portion of any automatic service
charges collected by the Defendant under the 'tips' earnings
code from Dec. 28, 2019 through the date of class
certification
and who during the same work week earned overtime wages,
meal
or rest break premiums, and sick pay wages."
Wage Statement Subclass
"All non-exempt hourly hotel employees of the Defendant who
were paid a portion of any automatic service charges
collected
by the Defendant under the 'tips' earnings code from Dec.
28,
2022 though the date of class certification and who were
furnished a corresponding wage statement that failed to
separately list the amount of automatic service charges
earned
by the employee on the wage statement."
Former Employee Subclass
"All non-exempt hourly hotel employees of the Defendant who
resigned and/or were terminated from Dec. 28, 2020 through
the
date of class certification and did not received their final
wages within the time provided by Labor Code sections 201
and/or 202."
Derivative Claims
"Plaintiff's Complaint also includes claims pursuant to
Labor
Code sections 201, 202, 203, and 226, and Business &
Professions Code section 17200, et seq." These claims are
entirely or partially derivative of Overtime Class and
Regular
Rate Class at issue in this Motion and should be certified
along with them if either class is certified.
B. Appoint Plaintiff Robert Martinez as representative for the
proposed Classes.
C. Appoint Crosner Legal P.C. ("CLPC") as Class Counsel for the
proposed Classes.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wp3Y3f at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
ILLINOIS: Cross Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alan Cross, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Brendan Kelly,
in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police,
Case No. 3:23-cv-03165-CRL-KLM (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colleen
Lawless entered an order granting in part and denying part Cross
motion for class certification.
Cross seeks certification of a class certification on behalf of him
and all other individuals residing in Illinois who have been
classified as "sexual predators" based on an out of state
conviction, even when similar conviction would not have resulted in
their classification as "sexual predators" under Illinois law.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fl6uaC at no extra
charge.[CC]
IOVATE HEALTH: Schoonover Seeks Clarification of Class Cert. Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILEY SCHOONOVER,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v.
IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES U.S.A. INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01487-FLA-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on Nov. 1, 2024, for an order clarifying the District Court's
Order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike
and denying Plaintiff's motion to certify class and for approval of
class notice plan.
After almost four years of litigation and the Court having granted
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and denied Defendant's
original request to dismiss the case for lack of equitable
jurisdiction, on Nov. 29, 2023, the Defendant nonetheless filed its
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Equitable Jurisdiction.
On Aug. 5, 2024, the Court entered its order granting Defendant's
motion to dismiss and motion to strike and denying plaintiff's
motion for approval of class notice plan.
Iovate offers nutritional supplements products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cGZIsu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002, ex.3
E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com
JERICO PICTURES: Burroughs Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jerico Pictures, Inc.
The case is styled as Diana Burroughs, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Jerico Pictures, Inc. doing
business as: National Public Data, Case No. 0:24-cv-61517-DSL (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 19, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
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:
Alexander Charles Cohen, Esq.
Lindsey Handley Taylor, Esq.
Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 750-3000
Email: acohen@rgrdlaw.com
ltaylor@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
JERICO PICTURES: Schmalz Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Schmalz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JERICO PICTURES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL PUBLIC DATA, Case
No. CACE-24-012149 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Aug.
23, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information
("PII") of the plaintiff, including without limitation names,
addresses, email addresses and Social Security numbers.
On December 2023 an intruder gained entry to the Defendants
database, accessed the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' PII and
exfiltrated information from the defendant systems (the "Data
Breach Incident"). The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of
the incident until August 14, 2024. During that time, the Defendant
deprived the Plaintiff of the opportunity to take any steps to
protect themselves from the misuse of their PII. The Plaintiff's
and the Class Members' PII was compromised due to the Defendant's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to
protect the plaintiffs and the class members PII.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and the Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly or negligently,
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure their PII 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 PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through access to and exfiltration by an unknown
unauthorized third party, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County,
Florida.
The Defendant is a Florida corporation with its principal place of
business in Coral Springs, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraido, Esq.
HIRALDO PA.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.400.4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th St, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
JP MORGAN: Court OK's Redactions of Class Certification Transcripts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jane Doe 1, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JP Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A., Case No. 22-cv-10019-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=zuONpQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
JRS SERVICE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 15
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perez Perez, et al. v. JRS
Service, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-08010-LTS-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Gabriel Gorenstein entered an order setting class
certification deadline as follows:
-- Any summary judgment motion shall be filed by Oct. 15, 2024.
-- Any opposition papers are due Oct. 29, 2024.
-- Any reply is due Nov. 5, 2024.
-- Any class certification motion by plaintiff shall be filed by
Oct.
15, 2024.
-- Any opposition papers are due Oct. 29, 2024.
-- Any reply is due November 5, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XrP3rd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Yuting Li, Esq.
DANNY GRACE PLLC
225 Broadway, Suite 1200
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 202 -2485
E-mail: yuting@dannygracepc.com
JRSK INC: Faces Cantwell Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JRSK, INC., D/B/A AWAY, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06917 (E.D.N.Y., October 1, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.awaytravel.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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events 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.
JRSK, Inc., doing business as Away, is a company that sells online
goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
KEMPER SPORTS: Davila Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENDRA DAVILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KEMPER SPORTS MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-09192 (N.D. Ill., September 30, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se,
unjust enrichment, and breach of bailment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach it learned on April 1, 2024. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Kemper Sports Management LLC is a sports property management
company with its principal place of business in Northbrook,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
KLN ENTERPRISES: S.D. California Dismisses Trammell Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit captioned MARK TRAMMELL, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KLN ENTERPRISES, INC., dba
Wiley Wallaby, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01884-H-JLB (S.D. Cal.).
On June 14, 2024, Defendant KLN Enterprises, Inc., doint business
as Wiley Wallaby, filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Mark
Trammell's first amended complaint ("FAC") pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). On July
1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. On July 8, 2024, the Defendant filed
a reply.
On June 24, 2024, the Court, pursuant to its discretion under Local
Rule 7.1(d)(1), submitted the motion on the parties' papers. For
the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the state of California.
The Defendant manufactures and sells licorice candies, including
Wiley Wallaby Very Berry Licorice. On May 23, 2023, the Plaintiff
claims that he purchased Wiley Wallaby Very Berry Licorice from a
Target in Encinitas, California.
The Plaintiff alleges that he is a student, who attempts to eat
"clean" and he prefers to consume only products that contain
all-natural flavorings. He further alleges that he carefully
reviews food and product labels, including the Wiley Wallaby Very
Berry Licorice label, to understand the characteristics of the
products he consumes.
As incorporated by reference in the Plaintiff's FAC, and as
attached as an exhibit to the Defendant's request for judicial
notice the subsequent images depict the packaging of the
Defendant's Wiley Wallaby Very Berry Licorice. The front label of
the packaging for the product states that it is "Natural Strawberry
& Raspberry Flavored Licorice" and "Naturally Flavored," while the
back label of the packaging states that the product is "Free of . .
. Artificial Colors & Flavors."
The Plaintiff alleges that these statements are reinforced by
depictions of fruits. He alleges that those representations on the
Defendant's packaging are false and misleading because Wiley
Wallaby Very Berry Licorice contains an ingredient known as "malic
acid," which is used as a flavoring in the Products. He further
alleges that the form of malic acid used in these Products is
artificial.
On Oct. 16, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against the Defendant, alleging claims for: (1) violations of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California Civil
Code Sections 1750, et seq.; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) breach
of express warranty.
On Dec. 21, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). On Jan. 12, 2024, the Plaintiff
filed a response in opposition to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss. On Jan. 22, 2024, the Defendant filed a reply. On April
22, 2024, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss with
leave to amend.
On April 24, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration. On May 13, 2024, the Defendant filed a response in
opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. On May
16, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a reply. On May 20, 2024, the Court
denied the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. On May 22, 2024,
the Plaintiff filed his FAC.
By the present motion, the Defendant moves pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6) to dismiss
the Plaintiff's FAC in its entirety. Specifically, the Defendant
argues that: (1) the Plaintiff fails to plead his claims, which the
Defendant argues are all grounded in fraud, with sufficient
particularity as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); (2) the
Plaintiff's CLRA claim does not pass the reasonable consumer test;
(3) the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to pursue his claim
for injunctive relief; and (4) the Plaintiff cannot pursue
equitable remedies because he has failed to plead facts
establishing that his legal remedies are inadequate.
Judge Huff finds that the Plaintiff fails to set forth what is
false or misleading about Wiley Wallaby Very Berry Licorice's
labeling, and why it is false, and thus, fails to give the
Defendant notice of the particular misconduct, which is alleged to
constitute the fraud. Because the Plaintiff has not alleged with
sufficient particularity that the malic acid used in Wiley Wallaby
Very Berry Licorice is artificial, Judge Huff finds the Plaintiff's
claims fail to meet Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard and
must be dismissed.
Even assuming the Plaintiff's claims meet the heightened pleading
standard of Rule 9(b), Judge Huff holds that the Plaintiff's CLRA
claim, nevertheless, fails under the reasonable consumer standard.
Judge Huff points out that the front label of Wiley Wallaby's Very
Berry Licorice is not unambiguously deceptive.
As such, Judge Huff holds the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
for violation of the CLRA, and the Court dismisses the claim with
prejudice. Because the Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible
claim of deception, the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment and breach of
express warranty claims also fail.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive
relief on the grounds that he lacks standing to pursue such relief.
The Plaintiff's CLRA claim seeks an order enjoining the Defendant
from engaging in alleged deceptive labeling practices.
Upon review of his FAC, Judge Huff finds, among other things, that
the Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege that he seeks or intends
to purchase Wiley Wallaby Very Berry Licorice again. And even
construing this allegation in the light most favorable to him, the
Plaintiff yet again fails to allege any facts in his FAC that
plausibly demonstrates "a real and immediate" threat of repeated
injury in the future.
Accordingly, Judge Huff holds the Plaintiff lacks standing to
pursue his claim for injunctive relief and that claim is
dismissed.
Next, the Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims to the
extent they seek equitable relief, arguing that he fails to allege
inadequacy of legal remedies. The Court agrees. The Plaintiff's
CLRA claim seeks relief in the form of monetary damages in addition
to equitable relief. He also alleges an unjust enrichment claim,
which seeks equitable relief.
Upon review of the Plaintiff's FAC, Judge Huff finds the Plaintiff
has failed to plead any facts establishing that he lacks an
adequate remedy at law. And again, the Plaintiff's FAC contains no
allegations establishing that his legal remedies are inadequate.
Accordingly, Judge Huff holds, to the extent the Plaintiff's claims
seek equitable relief, they are dismissed because he failed to
state a claim for equitable relief.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, and the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's FAC. Because the
deficiencies identified here cannot be cured by amendment of the
FAC, the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's FAC without leave to
amend. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3bp9xa from PacerMonitor.com.
LEGACY TOUCH: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Weiner Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN WEINER, ET AL, each
individually, as personal representatives of the estates of Pam
Kennedy, Mathew Silberman, and Jamie Draper, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. LEGACY TOUCH, INC., ET AL, Case No.
3:24-cv-01827-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David Dugan entered
an order adopting joint report and proposed scheduling and
discovery order as follows:
Depositions upon oral examination, interrogatories, requests for
documents, and answers and responses thereto shall not be filed
unless on order of the Court.
Disclosures or discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a) are to be filed with the Court only to the extent required by
the final pretrial order, other Court order, or if a dispute arises
over the disclosure or discovery and the matter has been set for
briefing.
The parties should note that they may, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 29, modify discovery dates set in the Joint Report
by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a date if
such modification would impact:
(1) the date of any court appearance,
(2) the deadline for completing the mandatory mediation session
or
the mandatory mediation process (if applicable),
(3) the deadline for completing all discovery, or
(4) the deadline for filing dispositive motions. IT IS SO
ORDERED
Legacy creates custom fingerprint jewelry and keepsakes.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xweqMy at no extra
charge.[CC]
LLR INC: Van Seeks Leave to Alter Prior Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE VAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LLR, INC. d/b/a
LuLaRoe, and LULAROE, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00197-SLG (D. Alaska),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion
for leave to move to alter the prior class certification order or,
in the alternative, submit a renewed motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiff requests the Court provide 30 days to submit such
motion after leave is granted.
To the extent that the Court sees no need to alter Judge Kindred's
prior ruling regarding predominance and standing, Plaintiff
believes that a narrower class can ameliorate all of Judge
Kindred's concerns.
Specifically, the Plaintiff could define a narrower class of
Alaskan consumers who paid shipping charges, even if they received
benefits "like a voucher, a promotional code, or free products,"
which Judge Kindred reasoned likely do have Article III standing
such that their presence in the class would not create predominance
concerns.
The Plaintiff Van brought this class action on behalf of a putative
class of similarly situated Alaskan consumers.
Judge Holland initially dismissed the action for lack of Article
III standing, which ruling was reversed by the Ninth Circuit.
On remand, Judge Holland certified the class. This ruling was
ultimately reversed and remanded by the Ninth Circuit, which held
that Judge Holland failed to consider whether discounts allegedly
offered by Retailers to offset the fraudulent sales tax altered
Judge Holland's predominance findings. On remand again (and after
reassignment), Judge Kindred denied class certification, finding
that individual questions regarding class members' Article III
standing predominated over class questions.
Judge Kindred raised this standing issue essentially sua sponte;
the parties did not address or argue standing in the substance of
their briefs, and standing was only briefly mentioned by the
defendant in a seven-word footnote.
LuLaRoe is a multilevel marketing company that sells clothing
throughout the United States via individual, independent
third-party sellers, known as "Retailers."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VxpF5w at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: kelly@lcllp.com
- and -
James J. Davis, Jr., Esq.
Goriune Dudukgian, Esq.
NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT, LLC
310 K Street, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 264-6634
Facsimile: (866) 813-8645
E-mail: gdudukgian@njp-law.com
jdavis@njp-law.com
LYFT INC: Lowell Class Complaint Dismissed w/ Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRIET LOWELL, et al., v.
LYFT, INC., Case No. 7:17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Philip Halpern entered an order concluding that the Complaint
must be dismissed with prejudice and judgment must be entered in
favor of Defendant.
Ms. Lowell and Westchester Disabled on the Move, Inc. ("WDOMI")
bring this class action against Lyft, Inc. for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and New York State Human
Rights Law ("NYSHRL").
The Plaintiffs allege that Lyft discriminates against individuals
in 96% of its service regions ("Non-Access Regions") who require
WAVs to travel, and offer "Access mode" in only nine regions
("Access Regions").
Ms. Lowell is a citizen of Westchester County and a resident of
White Plains, New York, who relies on a motorized scooter for
travel. (SF ¶ 1).3 She began progressively losing the ability to
walk in 1997 and has used a motorized scooter since 2008.
Lyft provides online ridesharing services. The Company offers ride
booking, payment processing, and car transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DSWA6R at no extra
charge.[CC]
MANIPAL EDUCATION: Class Settlement in Cherian Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTOSH CHERIAN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MANIPAL EDUCATION
AMERICAS, LLC, and AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF ANTIGUA INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00404-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rochon
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.
1. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class
defined
as:
"All individuals residing in the United States whose PII was
compromised in the Data Incident affecting Defendant that
occurred on or around August 30, 2023, including all those
individuals who received notice of the breach."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Manipal Education
Americas, LLC, and American University of Antigua Inc.; (ii)
the
Related Entities; (iii) all Settlement Class Members who
timely
and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iv)
any judges assigned to this case and their staff and family;
and
(v) any other Person found by a court of competent
jurisdiction
to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing,
aiding,
or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data
Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge.
2. Settlement Class Representative and Settlement Class Counsel.
The Court finds that Plaintiff Santosh Cherian will likely
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and should be
appointed
as the Settlement Class Representative. Additionally, the
Court
finds Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC will likely
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and should be
appointed
as Settlement Class Counsel.
3. A final approval hearing shall be held on March 19, 2025 at
10
am.
4. The Court appoints Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator,
with responsibility for class notice and settlement
administration. The Settlement Administrator is directed to
perform all tasks the Settlement Agreement requires.
Manipal Education operates as a management consulting company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6xZuaZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARS WRIGLEY: Frias Seeks to Certify Class of New York Purchasers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frias et al., v. Mars
Wrigley Confectionery US LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04422-AT (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting anticipated
motion seeking to certify a class of all New York purchasers of
cracker tubes described as containing a "Filling made with Real
Cheese" (Product), sold by Mars Wrigley under the Combos brand.
Certifying the proposed class is "superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy,"
because it will "achieve economies of time, effort and expense, and
promote uniformity of decisions as to [New York purchasers],
without sacrificing procedural fairness."
The Plaintiffs allege the labeling of the Product was misleading
with respect to the amount and proportion of real cheese.
The Plaintiffs purchased the Product in reliance on its
representations about real cheese, which are "typical of the claims
of the class."
Mars is a manufacturer of chocolate, chewing gum, mints and fruity
confections.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2rrmxA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES PC
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
MDL 2873: Ross Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-05391-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
The Ross case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [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
MILLESIMA USA: Pollitt Sues Over Website's Accessibility Barriers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK POLLITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MILLESIMA USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06932 (E.D.N.Y., October 1, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.millesima-usa.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 landmark structure, inaccurate focus
order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible dropdown menus, the lack
of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields,
the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and
the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a
mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Millesima USA, LLC 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
MMS GROUP: Bid to Certify Class Assigned to Magistrate Judge
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEWOOD TORRES, v. MMS
GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06142-DEH-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an amended order of reference to a
Magistrate Judge:
-- Dispositive Motion (i.e., motion requiring a Report and
Recommendation).
-- Particular Motion: Motion to Certify Class.
MMS Group provides property management and related services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FlrfQS at no extra
charge.[CC]
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Austin Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sammie Lee Austin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MNGI Digestive Health, PA, Case No.
27-CV-24-12369 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty., Aug. 21,
2024), is brought as a result of the Defendant's breach its duty to
safeguard the confidential information of its patients by, among
other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable
procedures and protocols needed to protect their PII and PHI from
unauthorized access and disclosure.
On August 20, 2023, Defendant's computer system and/or network of a
cyberattack that resulted in unauthorized access to the personally
identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information
("PHI") of 765,937 persons (the "Data Breach'), including
Plaintiff. PII and PHI include, among other sensitive information,
the person's name, Social Security number ("SSN"), driver's license
or state identification number, passport number, date of birth,
medical information and health insurance information, payment card
information, and account numbers.
In this case, because Plaintiff and the rest of the Class were kept
unaware for nearly a year that their PII and PHI had been hacked,
they were also unaware of the consequent necessity of taking extra
measures to prevent the unlawful use of their information.
Plaintiff and the Class also suffered the humiliation and
embarrassment of having some of their most sensitive medical and
financial information exposed to millions of people around the
world.
The Data Breach was an actual and foreseeable result of Defendant's
inadequate security measures. As a result of the Defendant's (or
lack of action), in addition to embarrassment, Plaintiff and Class
members now face a substantially increased risk of identity theft,
and other crimes from the unauthorized disclosure of their PII and
PHI. The harm was exacerbated by months of dithering before MNGI
finally notified its patients of the Data Breach. Plaintiff seeks
to hold MNGI accountable for the emotional toll, need for
additional preventative measures, misuse of personal information,
and all other costs imposed upon the Class as a result of
Defendant's misconduct, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff's Private Information was stored and handled by
Defendant on its systems.
The Defendant is a nationally recognized gastroenterology
healthcare practice with ten clinics in the Twin Cities area and
one clinic in Hudson, Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Frances Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 333-8844
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
finahoneymosedale@gustafsonpluek.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Ste. N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Phone: (215) 867-2399
Fax: (267) 685-0676
MNGI DIGESTIVE: Halvorson Sues Unlawful Disclosure of PII & PHI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Halvorson, Individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. MNGI Digestive Health, PA, Case No.
0:24-cv-03760-DWF-DJF (D. Minn., Aug. 19, 2024), is brought to
address Defendant's unlawful and widespread unauthorized practice
of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class members personally identifying
information ("PII") or protected health information ("PHI")
(collectively referred to as Private Information) to third parties.
The Defendant wan-ants that the services it offers on its website
are safe and secure. Contrary to its assurances, Defendant did not
maintain adequate systems and procedures to ensure the security of
the highly sensitive PII and PHI consumers entrusted to it. As a
result, Defendant was the target of a data breach ("Data Breach")
in which Plaintiffs and Class members' Private Information was
exposed to hackers and/or cybercriminals. Defendant published the
followg notice on its website: "On August 25, 2023, MNGI discovered
unauthorized activity within its digital environment."
The PII and PHI compromised in the Data B reach included
information concerning current and former employees and patients,
Including Plaintiff. This Private Information may include, but is
not limited to names, addresses, dates of birth, fact sheets,
Imaging reports, Social Security numbers, government identification
information/driver's license numbers, health insurance information,
and medical information.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's inadequate data
security, and breach of its duty to handle Private Information with
reasonable care, Plaintiffs Private Information has been accessed
by hackers and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized
individuals, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff's Private Information was stored and handled by
Defendant on its systems.
The Defendant wan-ants that it "is a nationally recognized leader
in
gastroenterology diagnosis, quality and care."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Frances Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 333-8844
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
finahoneymosedale@gustafsonpluek.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Ste. N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Phone: (215) 867-2399
Fax: (267) 685-0676
MORGAN COUNTY, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Downs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Downs v. County of Morgan
et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03066-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cPQhYw at no extra
charge.[CC]
MOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 1, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bond v. Motive
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01215 (N.D. Cal., Filed Feb.
28, 2024), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order
granting as modified parties' stipulation to extend the case
management schedule:
-- Fact Discovery Cutoff: Dec. 11, 2024
-- Expert Witness Disclosure: Dec. 26, 2024
-- Deadline for Rebuttal Reports: Feb. 6, 2025
-- Expert Discovery Cutoff: April 3, 2025
-- Deadline for Class Certification May 1, 2025
Motion:
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
The Company specializes in assisting trucking companies to manage
their fleets with safety and coaching, driver safety, spend
management, sensors and devices.[CC]
NAPLES RESTAURANT: Davis Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Davis, individually, and on behalf of the State of
California, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees v. NAPLES
RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24LBCV01749 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 20, 2024), is
brought under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004
("PAGA") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay all wages,
failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks,
failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses and costs
and failure to provide wage statements.
The Defendants failed to pay all wages (including minimum and
overtime wages) to Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees; failed
to pay premium wages to Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees who were
denied proper meal periods; and failed to pay premium wages to
Plaintiff
and Aggrieved Employees who were denied proper rest periods all in
violation of Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order.
Additionally, the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees were required
to use their personal cell phones for work related communications
with Defendants. Aggrieved employees were not reimbursed for the
use of these devices. The Defendants also did not provide accurate
and properly itemized wage statements to Aggrieved Employees, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a host and bus boy
beginning on February 2023, and lasting until his
termination/discharge on January 2024.
The Defendants are in the business of owning, operating, and
maintaining various restaurants throughout the State of California,
including in the County of Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aidin D. Ghavimi, Esq.
Zachary D. Greenberg, Esq.
STARPOINT, LC
15233 Ventura Boulevard, PH-16
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (310) 424-9971
Fax: (424) 255-4035
Email: service@starpointlaw.com
aidin@starpointlaw.com
zach@starpointlaw.com
NECTAR INTERNATIONAL: Heikes Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nectar International,
Inc. The case is styled as Mariah Heikes, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nectar International,
Inc. doing business as: Nectar Clothing, Case No. 8:24-cv-02124
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 1, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Nectar Clothing -- https://nectarclothing.com/ -- is a give back
brand based out of Southern California specializing in trendy
clothing and accessories such as dresses, purses, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW PA
20900 NE 30th Ave., 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
NEW YORK CITY: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Johns v. TLC
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MATTHEW JOHNS, and LENA BOWEN, Plaintiffs v.
DAVID DO, TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, and CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03497-PKC-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Pamela
K. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismisses the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs Matthew Johns and Lena Bowen bring this action on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated individuals against Defendants
City of New York, the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission
("TLC"), and TLC Commissioner David Do.
Plaintiff Johns is a private citizen, who lives in Queens, New
York, and has never driven a taxi. Plaintiff Bowen lives in
Connecticut and is a part-time driver for Lyft.
The Court notes that the docket sheet incorrectly lists Stanford
Miller, who is a plaintiff in a related case, as a plaintiff in
this action. The related case is Miller v. City of New York, No.
23-CV-65 (PKC) (SJB) (filed on Jan. 5, 2023). The Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate Stanford Miller from the docket.
The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint broadly challenges the TLC's
practice of having plainclothes TLC officers stop drivers, who are
dropping off or picking up people at John F. Kennedy International
Airport and LaGuardia Airport, as well as other locations
throughout New York City.
According to the Plaintiffs, the purpose of these stops is to
create a pretext for the driver to agree to take the officer to
some specified location for a fare. Once the driver agrees to take
the undercover officer to the desired location, another officer in
uniform returns to serve the driver with a violation under N.Y.C.
Admin. Code Section 19-506(b) (the "Street Hail Law"), which, inter
alia, prohibits operating or offering to operate a for-hire vehicle
without the appropriate TLC license.
Plaintiff Johns initiated this action on May 9, 2023. On July 18,
2023, the Defendants requested a pre-motion conference ("PMC")
regarding an anticipated motion to dismiss. In response, Plaintiff
Johns requested leave to amend the complaint. The Court granted
leave to amend, and the Amended Complaint was filed on Aug. 24,
2023.
The Amended Complaint names Johns and Bowen as Plaintiffs and
asserts the following claims for relief against the Defendants: (1)
42 U.S.C. Section 1983; Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution; Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; New York
State Constitution Section 12; and New York State Common Law; (2)
Pecuniary Damages and the Improper Levy and Collection of Fines
under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and New York
State Constitution Article 1, Section 5, and Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution known as the Commerce Clause; (3)
Malicious Prosecution; and (4) Punitive Damages.
The Plaintiffs also initiated this lawsuit as a putative class
action and seek to certify seven subclasses of similarly situated
individuals.
On Sept. 7, 2023, the Defendants again requested a PMC for an
anticipated motion to dismiss. The Court denied the Defendants' PMC
request as unnecessary, and adopted the parties' joint proposed
briefing schedule. The motion was fully briefed on Dec. 29, 2023.
Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim fails
for lack of standing. The Plaintiffs allege that the fines imposed
for violating the Street Hail Law violate the Eighth Amendment's
Excessive Fines Clause. Judge Chen opines that both Johns's and
Bowen's summonses were ultimately dismissed without an adjudication
of guilt or the imposition of fines. Thus, they have not suffered
the harm alleged in their Eighth Amendment claim, and there is no
fine for the Court to analyze or reimburse.
Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any
injury with respect to their Eighth Amendment claim, Judge Chen
holds they lack standing to bring that claim, and it is dismissed
pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1).
Judge Chen also finds the Plaintiffs have failed to: (i) state a
viable Fourth Amendment claim; (ii) to sufficiently allege
municipal liability as to the City; (iii) allege Commissioner Do's
personal involvement; (iv) state a malicious prosecution claim; and
(v) state a commerce clause claim.
There are no factual allegations concerning the Street Hail Law's
overall economic impact on interstate commerce, regulation of
out-of-state conduct, or disproportionate enforcement against
out-of-state drivers, Judge Chen opines, among other things.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is dismissed in its
entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and
close this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated Sept. 12,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3hd8hj4t from
PacerMonitor.com.
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Bid for More Time to File Reply Brief Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Casey E. Hall-Landers v.
New York University, Case No. 1:20-cv-03250-GBD-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order granting Plaintiff's letter
motion for extension of time to file reply brief and reply expert
reports.
The deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply in support of the motion
for class certification is extended up to and including Oct. 30,
2024. No further briefing extensions will be granted on the Motion.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close ECF No. 151.
New York University is a private research university in New York
City.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xWeWoh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
NEW YORK, NY: Fact Discovery in Dorce Suit Due Nov. 15
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCONNELL DORCE, et al.,
v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02216-JLR-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered a conference
scheduling order:
1. The parties shall meet and confer about collecting targeted
emails concerning relevant appraisals from the two custodians
identified during the Conference: Mr. Berns and Mr.
Indiviglio.
2. The parties shall continue to meet and confer on the tax lien
sale list issue.
3. The Municipal Defendants' request for a second deposition of
Plaintiff Sherlivia Thomas-Murchison is granted.
4. All fact discovery issues outlined above shall be completed
by
Nov. 15, 2024.
5. By Oct. 25, 2024, the Mutual Housing Association of New York
Management Inc. ("MHANY") shall produce a privilege log for
its
document production to Plaintiffs.
6. On or before Oct. 30, 2024, Plaintiffs shall file their
motion
for class certification. On or before Dec. 12, 2024,
Defendants
shall file their opposition. On or before Jan. 28, 2025,
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ylPh0V at no extra
charge.[CC]
NMS GROUP: Seeks to Revise Court's Class Cert Briefing Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elewood Torres v. NMS
Group LLC d/b/a MMS Group, et al. Case No. 1:22-cv-06142-DEH-VF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
a revision to the Court's briefing schedule for plaintiff's motion
for class certification as follows:1
Event Old Deadline New
Deadline
TUC and Housing Defendants to each Oct. 7, 2024 Oct. 21,
2024
serve their opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification
Plaintiff to serve his reply in Nov. 7, 2024 Nov. 21,
2024
further support of his Motion for
Class Certification
This is the second request for an extension, and it is made with
Plaintiff’s consent. The reason for the request is that
Defendants need additional time to fully respond to Plaintiff’s
motion due to the upcoming Jewish holiday and certain individual
travel plans, as well as the fact that the parties have been
working towards a resolution regarding a discovery issue.
Accordingly, given that it is made on consent, the Defendants
request that the Court extend the date for Defendants to serve
their opposition and enter the parties' agreed upon Briefing
Schedule as set forth above.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OoWUsQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen G. Rickershauser, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
77 Water Street, Suite 2100
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 863-9522
E-mail: Stephen.Rickershauser@lewisbrisbois.com
NORDIC KNOTS: Hernandez Sues Over Website's Barriers to Blind Users
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORDIC KNOTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06924 (E.D.N.Y., October 1, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.nordicknots.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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events 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.
Nordic Knots, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: Discloses Info to 3rd Parties, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
S.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ADVANCED SURGERY CENTER, LP, d/b/a
RETINAL CONSULTANTS MEDICAL GROUP AND RETINA CONSULTANTS OF
AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-at-01239 (E.D. Cal., September
27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, invasion of privacy, breach
of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants disregarded the privacy
rights of their patients who used their website by installing,
configuring and using pixels and other tracking technologies on the
website to collect and divulge their personally identifiable
information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) to third
parties, including Meta Platform Inc. d/b/a Facebook, Google LLC,
and Alphabet, Inc. The Defendants (or any third parties) did not
obtain the Plaintiff's and Class members' prior consent before
sharing their sensitive, confidential communications with third
parties such as Facebook. As a result of the Defendants' conduct,
the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered numerous injuries,
including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) lack of trust in
communicating with doctors online; (iii) emotional distress and
heightened concerns related to the release of private information
to third parties; (iv) loss of the benefit of the bargain; (v)
diminution of value of the private information; (vi) statutory
damages and (vii) continued and ongoing risk to their private
information, says the suit.
Northern California Advanced Surgery Center, LP, doing business as
Retinal Consultants Medical Group, is a retinal care provider, with
its principal place of business located in Sacramento, California.
Retina Consultants of America is a retinal subspecialty practice
group, with its principal place of business located in Southlake,
Texas. [BN]
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
Email: 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
Email: jrparker@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com
O'REILLY AUTO: Pipich Seeks Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY PIPICH, EVE STORM,
GARY CULL, MELISSA KOLAKOWSKI, and DANIEL LOPEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and as "aggrieved
employees" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, v. O'REILLY AUTO
ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; EXPRESS
SERVICES, INC., a Colorado corporation dba Express Employment
Professionals; and DOES 2–50, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-01120-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
(1) finally approving the Class Action and PAGA Settlement
Agreement and Class Notice (the "Settlement" or "Settlement
Agreement") agreed to by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants;
(2) confirming the certification of the Class solely for
settlement
purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
("Rule
23");
(3) confirming the appointment of David Spivak of The Spivak Law
Firm, Alexandra K. Piazza of Berger Montague PC, and Walter
L.
Haines of United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel;
(4) confirming the appointment of Plaintiffs as class
representatives;
(5) granting final approval to an allocation of $410,000.00 for
claims for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General act of 2004, Labor Code sections 2698, et
seq. ("PAGA Payment"), of which $307,500.00 will be paid to
the
Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and
$102,500.00
of which will be available for distribution to all Aggrieved
Employees; and
(6) directing that [Proposed] Final Approval Order and Final
Judgment submitted herewith be entered as called for under
the
Settlement.
The "Settlement Class" or "Class Members" consists of:
"All individuals employed by one or both Defendants as non-
exempt, hourly employees, either directly or indirectly
through
staffing agencies, and who worked at one of Defendant
O'Reilly
Auto Enterprises, LLC's distribution centers in California
at
any time during the Class Period."
"Class Period" means the period from July 5, 2018 to May
22,
2024.
O'Reilly provides private-label and generic automotive products for
domestic and imported cars.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZL1BnU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David G. Spivak, Esq.
Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
8605 Santa Monica Blvd., PMB 42554
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (213) 725-9094
Facsimile: (213) 634-2485
E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
caroline@spivaklaw.com
- and –
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Michael J. Anderson, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
8241 La Mesa Blvd, Suite A
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 489-0300
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: apiazza@bm.net
scarson@bm.net
crodriguez@bm.net
manderson@bm.net
- and -
Walter L. Haines, Esq.
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
8605 Santa Monica Blvd., PMB 63354
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (562) 256-1047
Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
E-mail: walter@uelglaw.com
OARS AND ALPS: Battle Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OARS AND ALPS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09188 (N.D. Ill., September 30, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://oarsandalps.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 landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing
of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive
elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down
menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of
keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links
where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse,
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.
Oars and Alps, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Roper Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brendan A. Hurson of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland denies the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration in
the lawsuit captioned THELMA ROPER, Plaintiff v. OLIPHANT
FINANCIAL, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-02112-BAH (D.
Md.).
Plaintiff Thelma Roper brought the lawsuit against Defendants
Oliphant Financial, LLC, and Stillman P.C. alleging violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the Maryland
Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA"), and the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act ("MCPA").
On Aug. 24, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained a personal loan (the
"Loan") in the amount of $16,900 through a website operated by
LendingClub Corporation, an online marketplace that connects
borrowers and investors. The Loan was issued by WebBank.
Of relevance to the pending motion to compel, before receiving the
Loan, borrowers are required to e-sign a Borrower Agreement by
checking a box signifying their electronic consent to the terms.
Specifically, paragraph 20 of the Borrower Agreement provides, in
relevant part, that either party to the agreement, or any
subsequent holder, may, at its sole election, require that the sole
and exclusive forum and remedy for resolution of a Claim be final
and binding arbitration pursuant to this Section 20 ("the
Arbitration Provision").
Within three days of the Loan being issued, WebBank transferred the
Loan to LendingC]ub. LendingClub then assigned the Loan to
Wilmington Savings Fund Society ("WSFS"). On March 23, 2018, the
Loan was sold and assigned to Oliphant by LendingClub, acting as
power of attorney on behalf of WSFS.
After Oliphant acquired the Loan, the Plaintiff defaulted on the
Loan. The Plaintiffs last payment on the account was on Oct. 23,
2017, and the account was charged off on Feb. 28, 2018. On Nov. 22,
2022, Oliphant brought a debt-collection action against the
Plaintiff in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George's
County.
The Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the claim was
barred by the statute of limitations and alleging that the claim
was expressly prohibited by law. The court granted the motion to
dismiss after finding that the Defendants failed to file the claim
within the statute of limitations.
The Plaintiff now alleges that filing a debt collection lawsuit
beyond the statute of limitations violated various Maryland
consumer protections laws.
On July 6, 2023, the Plaintiff commenced this putative class action
in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. The Defendants
removed the case to this Court on Aug. 4, 2023. On Jan. 16, 2024,
the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and to either,
dismiss or stay this matter. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a
response in opposition to the Defendants' motion on Jan. 30, 2024.
On Feb. 2, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to stay all
discovery pending resolution of the motion to compel. On Feb. 8,
2024, the Defendants filed a reply to the Plaintiff's opposition to
the motion to compel. The Plaintiff then filed a response in
opposition to the Defendants' motion to stay discovery, on Feb. 16,
2024. On Feb. 19, the Defendants filed a reply to the Plaintiff's
opposition. On March 12, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants'
motion to stay pending resolution of the motion to compel
arbitration.
The Defendants move to compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate the claims
on a non-class basis pursuant to the parties' Borrower Agreement
and to dismiss (or stay) this matter pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA).
The Plaintiff counters that the Defendants cannot compel her to
arbitrate because they: 1) waived the right to compel arbitration
by previously commencing a debt-collection lawsuit against her; 2)
failed to provide sufficient evidence that an arbitration agreement
exists; and 3) failed to prove that they are parties to the
agreement to arbitrate.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff and the Defendants initially
entered into a valid arbitration agreement, the Defendants
sufficiently authenticated the Borrower Agreement, and the
Defendants are contemplated by the Borrower Agreement as a
subsequent holder of the Loan.
However, the Court further finds that the Defendants waived their
right to arbitrate this case because the claim at issue is
sufficiently related to the claim that was previously litigated in
state court. Accordingly, the Court: (1) denies the Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration; and (2) sets aside the order to stay
discovery.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and the order granting their motion to stay
discovery pending the resolution of the motion to compel
arbitration is set aside. The stay entered at ECF 30 is lifted and
the case will proceed. The parties are asked to submit a joint
proposed schedule with an accompanying order within twenty days.
A separate implementing Order will issue.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Sept. 12,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/37aj6cec from
PacerMonitor.com.
ONEAZ CREDIT UNION: Aguilar Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deyra Pamela Carranza Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. OneAZ Credit Union, Case No.
2:24-cv-02657-CDB (D. Ariz., Oct. 1, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for unlawful discrimination in violation of the Civil
Rights Act of 1866, as codified at 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 ("Section
1981").
The Defendant follows a policy of denying applicants full access to
financial products and services on the basis of their immigration
status or alienage, including those who have Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals ("DACA"). The Plaintiff and members of the Class
she seeks to represent were and are unable to access Defendant's
financial products and services because of their immigration status
or alienage.
The Plaintiff told Pearson that she had good credit, was employed,
and earned a good income, hoping that they would reconsider.
Pearson appeared to do some calculations and told The Plaintiff
that her economic status was "pretty good for Flagstaff." At that
time, the Plaintiff's only other liability was a personal loan with
a balance of between one and two thousand dollars. Pearson made no
further inquiries and merely suggested that she seek advice from a
former OneAZ employee who he believed was a DACA recipient. The
Plaintiff suffered harm as a result of OneAZ's refusal to process
her application because of her alienage. OneAZ's conduct caused the
Plaintiff to suffer damages, including compensatory damages and
emotional distress. OneAZ's refusal to process The Plaintiff's
application caused her to feel the deleterious effects of
discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a recipient of DACA and has been since 2015.
The Defendant is a federally insured and member-owned credit union
incorporated in Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Saenz, Esq.
Eduardo Casas, Esq.
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Phone: (213) 629-2512
Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
Email: tsaenz@maldef.org
ecasas@maldef.org
- and -
Daniel R. Ortega, Jr., Esq.
ORTEGA LAW FIRM, P.C.
361 East Coronado Rd., Suite 101
Phoenix, AZ 85004-1525
Phone: (602) 386-4455
Facsimile: (602) 386-4480
Email: danny@ortegalaw.com
ORANGEBURG COUNTY, SC: Agrow Bid for Conditional Cert Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Janet Argrow and Berlinda
Adams, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
v. Orangeburg County School District, Case No. 5:24-cv-01433-SAL
(D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri Lydon entered an order granting in
part Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification.
The Defendant shall provide the contact information within 15 days,
and the Plaintiffs shall disseminate the proposed notice in
accordance with the terms of this Order.
Upon review of the pleadings and the declarations of Janet Argrow
and Berlinda Adams, the court finds Plaintiffs have carried their
minimal burden to show a similarly situated class of potential
plaintiffs who are or were employed by Defendant as Parent
Liaisons
The court grants Plaintiffs’ request for conditional
certification and defines the collective as follows: all current
and former Parent Liaisons who were employed by Orangeburg County
School District at any time from three (3) years prior to the date
of this Order to the present.
Plaintiffs Janet Argrow and Berlinda Adams were employed as Parent
Liaisons with Defendant Orangeburg County School District. They
allege their positions were fully paid for with federal funds, and
their specified role as Parent Liaisons was generally to increase
academic achievement by facilitating relationships between families
and schools.
They claim, however, that Defendant required them to perform tasks
outside of their authorized scope, such as staffing morning
drop-off. Coupled with their afterschool meetings, the extra tasks
allegedly resulted in workweeks that exceeded forty hours. Among
other causes of action, they seek to bring a collective action on
behalf of similarly situated Parent Liaisons for unpaid overtime
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PHXNLh at no extra
charge.[CC]
PARAGON 28: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Ellington Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN K. ELLINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARAGON 28, INC., ALBERT DACOSTA,
STEPHEN M. DEITSCH, and KRISTINA WRIGHT, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-02712 (D. Colo., September 30, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Paragon 28's business,
operations, and prospects in order to trade Paragon 28 common stock
at artificially inflated prices between May 5, 2023, and August 8,
2024. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Paragon 28's
financial statements were misstated; (2) Paragon 28 lacked adequate
internal controls and at times understated the extent of the issues
with its internal controls; and (3) as a result, the Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all times.
When the truth emerged, the price of Paragon 28 common stock fell
by $1.67 per share, or 20 percent, to close at $6.64 on August 9,
2024. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
common shares, the Plaintiff and the other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges.
Paragon 28, Inc. is a manufacturer of medical devices,
headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com
PARKING MANAGEMENT: Pierre Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Pierre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PARKING MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Foreign Limited
Liability Company, Case No. CACE-24-011796 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir.
Ct., Broward Cty., Aug. 19, 2024), is brought under the Florida
Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA") for damages and demand for jury trial
against Defendant for failure to pay valet attendants state minimum
wages during the relevant time period.
The Defendant committed state minimum wage violations because it
compensated Valet Attendants at the reduced wage for tipped
employees, but failed to provide Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated with statutory notice of taking a tip credit. The
Defendant violated the terms of the FMWA and the Florida
Constitution's minimum wage requirements by taking a tip credit
toward the applicable Florida minimum wage but by failing to
provide Plaintiff and the putative class members the statutorily
required tip notice for the past 5 years, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Valet Attendant.
The Defendant was a foreign limited liability company registered in
the State of Florida and operating and transacting business within
Broward County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Michael V. Miller, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 Southeast 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (954) 871-0050
Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
PAYCOR INC: Case Management Order Entered in Johns Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johns v. Paycor, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00264 (S.D. Ill., Filed March 11, 2020), the Hon.
Judge David W. Dugan entered a case management order as follows:
The purpose of these actions was to, inter alia , facilitate
discussions about the orderly progression of the case following the
stay, including discussions about Plaintiffs' renewed motion for
rule 23 class certification.
Additionally, on or before Oct. 24, 2024 , the parties are directed
to report on their disputes by submitting a Joint Written Report to
the Court at DWDpd@ilsd.uscourts.gov.
The nature of suit states torts - personal property - other fraud.
Paycor operates as a software company.[CC]
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Bokma Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA B. BOKMA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00686 (E.D. Va., September 30, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco
surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher
premiums for their health insurance. The Defendant does not provide
the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did,
it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability
of such an alternative in all its plan communications.
Consequently, the Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's
anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on
employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal
requirements for a bona fide wellness program. As a result of the
imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge,
the Defendant enriched itself at the expense of the plan, resulting
in it receiving a windfall, says the suit.
Performance Food Group, Inc. is a foodservice distributor with its
principal place of business in Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Williams, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: cwilliams@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
PIQ-SOH LLC: Cantwell Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIQ-SOH, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06919 (E.D.N.Y., October 1, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.piqgifts.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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events 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.
Piq-Soh, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Crowder Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ronna Crowder, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES, INC. D/B/A
LEGALSHIELD and TALKDESK, INC., Case No. CVRI2403794 was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on Aug. 22, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07123.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that her allegedly confidential
communications with LegalShield about her allegedly "sensitive
financial information" and "sensitive personal information" were
recorded and shared with Talkdesk pursuant to LegalShield's alleged
use of Talkdesk's software. She asserts that this conduct violates
the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") prohibitions
against wiretapping, recording of a confidential communication, and
recording of a telephone call, and constitutes a violation of her
common law right to privacy and a breach of quasi contract. The
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a putative
class of California residents.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Rebekah S. Guyon, Esq.
Adam M. Korn, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-586-7700
Email: GuyonR@gtlaw.com
Adam.Korn@gtlaw.com
- and -
Steven M. Millendorf, Esq.
Mikle S. Jew, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
555 South Flower St., Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 858-847-6814
Email: smillendorf@foley.com
mjew@foley.com
PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Ward Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA WARD, individually and for others similarly situated
Plaintiff v. PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH, a Washington nonprofit
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01528 (W.D. Wash.,
September 24, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages
from Providence St. Joseph Health.
Plaintiff Ward worked for Providence as a registered nurse in and
around Portland, OR. He was allegedly misclassified as an
independent contractor and was not paid proper overtime wages.
Based in Renton, WA, Providence St. Joseph Health is a domestic
nonprofit corporation that provides health and social services
across Alaska, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas and
Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP
705 Second Ave., Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PVH CORP: Visually Impaired Can't Access Online Store, Dalton Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE DALTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PVH CORP. d/b/a TOMMY HILFIGER, Defendant,
Case No. 0:24-cv-03766 (D. Minn., September 30, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights
Act.
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 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: fails to alert screen readers to
pop-up window content, does not provide sufficient screen
reader-accessible text equivalent for important non-text images,
presents content with an illogical and confusing tab and focus
order, and unclear purpose of certain links and/or buttons on the
website, 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.
PVH Corp. d/b/a Tommy Hilfiger is a company that sells online goods
and services, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
R & G MASULLO: Alvarenga Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAN ALVARENGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. R & G MASULLO INC. and ROSARIO MASULLO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06902 (E.D.N.Y., September 30, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to
provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a laborer from in
or about March 2013 through in or about the end of December 2023.
R & G Masullo Inc. is a provider of landscaping and gardening
services, with its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
Email: mfarnworth@RomeroLawNY.com
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Vines Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Republic Services,
Inc. The case is styled as Pamela Vines, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated v. Republic Services, Inc. doing
business as: BFI Waste Systems North America, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00697-UA-JLW (M.D.N.C., Aug. 19, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.
Republic Services, Inc. -- https://www.republicservices.com/ -- is
a North American waste disposal company whose services include
non-hazardous solid waste collection, waste transfer, waste
disposal, recycling, and energy services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dustin Reed Solt, Esq.
Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Ave.
Detroit, MI 48207
Phone: (865) 804-7691
Email: rsolt@lsccounsel.com
Lsheets@LSCcounsel.com
sliddle@LSCcounsel.com
- and -
Valerie Johnson, Esq.
JOHNSON & GRONINGER, PLLC
300 Blackwell Street, Suite 101
Durham, NC 27701
Phone: (919) 240-4054
Fax: (888) 412-0421
Email: valerie@jglawnc.com
RICHARD LONINGER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Vega Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RICHARD LONINGER DPM, P.C., Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-09554 (D.N.J., October 1, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.downtownnycfootcare.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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events 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.
Richard Loninger DPM, P.C. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
RUG COMPANY: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Hernandez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE RUG COMPANY, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06923 (E.D.N.Y., October 1, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.therugcompany.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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events 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.
The Rug Company, Ltd. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS: Barnett Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rosalety Avila Barnett, Joshua Nappi,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Saint-Gobain Glass Corporation, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 30-02024-01413259-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Orange County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Aug. 22, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-01844-FWS-DFM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Employment
Discrimination.
Saint-Gobain -- https://www.saint-gobain-glass.com/ -- designs,
manufactures and distributes materials and solutions which are key
ingredients in the wellbeing of each of us and the future of
all.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Arsine Grigoryan, Esq.
Dorota A. James, 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
arsine.grigoryan@wilshirelawfirm.com
dorota.james@wilshirelawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Melis Atalay, 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: evan.moses@ogletree.com
melis.atalay@ogletree.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Unger Suit Over Defective Steam Ranges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW UNGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-09383 (D.N.J., September 24, 2024)
arises from Defendant's breach of its duties and warranties,
seeking to remedy various violations of law in connection with
Defendant's manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, and
warranting of certain recalled steam ranges.
Allegedly, the front-mounted heat control knobs of these recalled
ranges can be activated by accidental contact by humans or pets,
posing a fire hazard. However, the Plaintiff has never been
informed of any recalls or defects related to his range by anyone
affiliated with Samsung and has learned of the defects on social
media. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of
express warranty, unjust enrichment, and for violations of New York
General Business Law's Sections 349 and 350.
Headquartered in Ridgefield Park, NJ, Samsung Electronics America,
Inc. designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services,
repairs, and sells consumer electronics products and kitchen
appliances, including steam ranges. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Furia, Esq.
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle Esq.
Seth Little Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
seth.little@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
SIDECAR DOUGHNUTS: Buckley Sues Over Noncompliance of Civil Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Buckley, on behalf herself and all others similarly situated
v. SIDECAR DOUGHNUTS LLC, and DOES 1 through 20, Case No.
30-2024-01420965-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., Aug. 23,
2024), is brought arising from the Defendants continued
noncompliance of the Civil Code that states "any gift certificate
with a cash value of less than $10 is redeemable in cash for its
cash value."
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in a
consistent policy and/or practice of failing to provide cash to
consumers, wishing to redeem a gift card with a cash value of less
than $10.00. Alternatively, the Plaintiff alleges that the
defendant has failed to maintain a policy and/or practice of
ensuring compliance with Civil Code. As a result, the Defendant has
violated and continues to violate consumer statutory rights under
the Civil Code and the Business and Professions Code., says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a consumer who acquired by purchased goods or
services for personal, family, or household purposes, one of the
Defendant's gift cards.
The Defendant sells specialty doughnuts and coffee to the general
public in retail stores in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
Neil B. Fineman, Esq.
FINEMAN O POLINER LLP
155 North Riverview Drive
Anaheim Hill, CA 92808-1225
Phone: (714) 620-1125
Fax: (714) 701-0155
Email: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com
Neil@FinemanPoliner.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Fordham Files Suit in D. Montana
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowflake, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Christina Fordham, Allen Gaters, Angela
Haughton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Snowflake, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00092-BMM (D. Mont.,
Aug. 30, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
Snowflake Inc. -- https://www.snowflake.com/en/ -- is an American
cloud computing–based data cloud company based in Bozeman,
Montana.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John C. Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Phone: (406) 839-9091
Fax: (406) 839-9092
Email: john@lawmontana.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Bailey Marie Nickoloff, Esq.
Brianne C. McClafferty, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
401 N 31st St., Ste. 1500
Billings, MT 59101
Phone: (406) 896-4653
Fax: (406) 545-2334
Email: bmnickoloff@hollandhart.com
bcmcclafferty@hollandhart.com
STERIS CORP: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Radic by Nov. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DRAGUTIN RADIC, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. STERIS CORPORATION, an Ohio Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01174-AJB-VET (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order setting
class certification briefing schedule as follows:
1. Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class
certification
shall be Oct. 4, 2024.
2. Defendant's deadline to file their opposition to Plaintiff's
motion for class certification shall be Nov. 15, 2024.
3. Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply to Defendant's
opposition
shall be Dec. 12, 2024.
Steris is a provider of infection prevention and other procedural
products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q49wG5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
STERIS CORP: Radic Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DRAGUTIN RADIC, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. STERIS CORPORATION, an Ohio Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01174-AJB-VET (S.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on Dec. 19, 2024, for an
order granting class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure of claims against the Defendant.
Specifically, Plaintiff moves for an order:
1. Certifying as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules
of the Civil Procedure Plaintiff's claims for to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide meal periods, unfair competition,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to
pay
all wages owed upon termination, asserted on behalf of the
Field
Service Employees Class, the Wage Statement Subclass, and/or
the
Separated Employees Subclass, which are defined as follows:
Field Service Employees Class:
"All persons who, at any time since March 1, 2019, worked for
The Defendant in California as a non-exempt employee who
performed services pertaining to the installation, repair or
maintenance of medical equipment at customer or client sites
and
drove a company provided vehicle from and back to a "home
based"
location (which includes a residence or a hotel)."
Wage Statement Subclass:
"All persons who, at any time since since March 1, 2022,
worked
for the Defendant in California as a non-exempt employee who
performed services pertaining to the installation, repair or
maintenance of medical equipment at customer or client sites
and
drove a company provided vehicle from and back to a "home
based"
location (which includes a residence or a hotel)."
Separated Employee Subclass:
"All persons who worked for Defendant in California as a
non-
exempt employee who performed services pertaining to the
installation, repair or maintenance of medical equipment at
customer or client sites and drove a company provided vehicle
from and back to a "home based" location (which includes a
residence or a hotel) whose employment with the Defendant
ended
at any time since March 1, 2020.
2. Appointing the Plaintiff as the representative for the class.
3. Appointing Plaintiff's counsel of record Gregory N. Karasik
of
Karasik Law Firm and Alexander I. Dychter and S. Adam Spiewak
of
Dychter Law Offices, APC as counsel for the class.
Steris is a pre-eminent infection prevention, decontamination, and
surgical and critical care company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EzIVoS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
S. Adam Spiewak, Esq.
DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
9820 Willow Creek Road, Suite 275
San Diego, CA 92131
Telephone: (619) 487-0777
Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com
adam@dychterlaw.com
- and -
Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
KARASIK LAW FIRM
16021 Aiglon St.
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
Telephone: (310) 463-9761
Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com
STREETTEAM SOFTWARE: Ulmer Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLER ULMER; SERGIO
GIANCASPRO; CORI ERSHOWSKY; ALEXIS GERACI; JAMERE BOWERS; and ADAKU
IBEKWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. STREETTEAM SOFTWARE, LLC d/b/a POLLEN; NETWORK TRAVEL
EXPERIENCES, INC; JUSEXPERIENCES UK LIMITED; CALLUM NEGUSFANCEY;
LIAM NEGUS-FANCEY; and JAMES ELLIS, Case No. 2:23-cv-02226-HDV-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Nov. 14, 2024
for an order:
1. Certifying the classes and subclass below;
2. Appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed
classes
or any other classes or subclasses approved by the Court;
3. Appointing Damion Robinson, Valdi Licul, Meredith Firetog,
and
William Baker as class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g); and
4. Issuance such orders concerning notice and other matters as
necessary to effectuate the Court's certification order.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following classes and
subclasses:
a. Wage Class:
"All U.S.-based employees of Defendants StreetTeam Software,
LLC
and Network Travel Experiences, Inc. in the United States
from
July 1, 2022 through Aug. 10, 2022 and who did not receive
wages, benefits, or expense reimbursements for said period."
i. New York Wage Subclass:
"All members of the Wage Class who were protected under
the
New York Labor Law during July 1, 2022 through Aug. 10,
2022."
ii. California Wage Subclass:
"All members of the Wage Class who were protected under
the
California Labor Code during July 1, 2022 through Aug.
10,
2022."
iii. Nevada Wage Subclass:
"All members of the Wage Class who were protected under
Nevada wage laws, including N.R.S., Chapter 608, during
July 1, 2022 through Aug. 10, 2022."
b. Layoff Class:
"All U.S.-based employees of Defendants who were laid off
from
May 2022 through Aug. 2022."
i. Severance Subclass:
"All members of the Layoff Class who had in place an
agreement for payment of severance."
The Plaintiffs make this Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on the grounds that the classes are so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; there are
common questions of law and fact; the claims of the named
plaintiffs are typical; the named plaintiffs and counsel will
fairly and adequately represent the classes; and common questions
predominate and class treatment is superior to other methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy.
This is a straightforward wage and hour class action. Defendants
StreetTeam Software, LLC d/b/a Pollen and Network Travel
Experiences, Inc. failed to pay employees for six weeks leading up
to the companies' abrupt closure on Aug. 10, 2022.
On that date, the Corporate Defendants laid off substantially all
employees without prior notice in violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act).
The Plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of approximately 200
displaced workers against the Corporate Defendants as well as their
principals.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K5RiMV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Valdi Licul, Esq.
Meredith Firetog, Esq.
William Baker, Esq.
WIGDOR LLP
85 5th Avenue, Floor 5
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
E-mail: vlicul@wigdorlaw.com
mfiretog@wigdorlaw.com
wbaker@wigdorlaw.com
- and -
Damion D. Robinson, Esq.
DIAMOND McCARTHY LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (424) 278-2335
E-mail: damion.robinson@diamondmccarthy.com
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Seeks Oral Argument on Decertification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Butler et al., v. Suffolk
County et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-02602-JS-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order grating motion for an
oral argument at the Court's earliest convenience to address the
motion to decertify the class in this matter.
There is currently a trial scheduled to begin on November 12, 2024,
the Defendants contends.
Suffolk County is the easternmost county in the U.S. state of New
York, constituting the eastern two-thirds of Long Island.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jiL1Gu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
E. Christopher Murray, Esq.
RIVKIN RADLER LLP
926 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556-0926
Telephone: (516) 357-3000
Facsimile: (516) 357-3333
E-mail: e.murray@rivkin.com
TEDG LLC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Robles Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TEDG LLC d/b/a THE EMERALD DISPENSARY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07426 (S.D.N.Y., October 1, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights
Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State
Civil Rights, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.theemeralddispensary.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: redundant alternative text, linked images missing
alternative text, and missing form labels.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
TEDG LLC, doing business as the Emerald Dispensary, is a company
that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Ryan Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROOKE RYAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TEMPLE
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:20-cv-02164-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23:
(1) Preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement on behalf of
the Settlement Class Members according to the terms of the
Class Action Settlement Agreement;
(2) Provisionally certifying, for purposes of the Settlement
only,
the following Settlement Class:
"All Temple undergraduate, graduate, and professional
students
who paid their tuition and/or University Services Fee
obligations from any source for the Spring 2020 Semester,
enrolled in at least one in-person, on-campus class during
the
Spring 2020 Semester, and remained enrolled after March 16,
2020."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) any person who
withdrew from Temple on or before March 16, 2020; (2) any
person who was enrolled solely in a class or classes that
were
originally intended to be taught in an online format in the
Spring 2020 Semester even before the COVID-19 pandemic; (3)
any
person who received a full scholarship\grants from Temple or
otherwise was not obligated to make contributions, payments
or
third-party arrangements towards tuition or fees for the
Spring
2020 Semester; (4) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding
over
these Actions and members of their families; (5) any person
who
properly executes and files a timely request for exclusion
from
the Settlement Class; and (6) the legal representatives,
successors or assigns of any such excluded persons.
(3) Preliminarily appointing Named Plaintiffs Brooke Ryan and
Christina Fusca as Settlement Class Representatives;
(4) Preliminarily appointing Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo, LLC,
Lynch Carpenter, LLP, and Carpey Law, P.C. as Class Counsel
to
act on behalf of the Settlement Class and the Settlement
Class
Representatives with respect to the Settlement;
(5) Approving the settlement procedures outlined in the
Settlement
Agreement, including approving the Parties' selection of
A.B.
Data, Ltd. as Settlement Administrator and approving the
Parties' proposed schedule;
(6) Entering the proposed Order Preliminarily Approving the
Class
Action Settlement, Provisionally Certifying the Proposed
Settlement Class, Appointing Class Counsel, Approving
Proposed
Class Notice, and Scheduling a Final Approval Hearing,
attached
as Exhibit D to the Settlement Agreement, which is attached
as
Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Gary F. Lynch; and
(7) Granting such other and further relief as may be just and
appropriate.
Temple University is a public state-related research university in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uOTmmJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY
ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
E-mail: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
- and -
Stuart A. Carpey, Esq.
CARPEY LAW, P.C.
600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Telephone: (610) 834-6030
E-mail: scarpey@carpeylaw.com
TIMES INTERNET: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Kishore Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order granting in part
and denying in part motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled HARI
KISHORE, et al., Plaintiffs v. TIMES INTERNET (UK) LTD., Defendant,
Case No. 4:23-cv-03594-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs Hari Kishore and Brett Walker initially filed this
putative class action in July 2023. In their first amended
complaint ("FAC"), the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
disclosed information about the Plaintiffs' and putative class
members' personal video-viewing habits without their consent.
The Defendant operates "Willow TV," a streaming video service that
offers a catalog of prerecorded cricket matches to its subscribers.
Subscribers pay $9.99 a month for access to the Willow TV library
of prerecorded videos.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant used the Meta Pixel, a
piece of software code, on the Willow TV website to track and
collect subscribers' data for targeted advertising. The Pixel, in
turn, also sent subscriber data to third-party Meta Platforms Inc.,
which offers websites free use of the Pixel in exchange for this
data.
The Plaintiffs allege that such conduct violates the Video Privacy
Protection Act ("VPPA") and California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), as well as the Defendant's own assurances that "[w]e do
not provide any personally identifiable information to third party
websites . . . without your consent."
The Defendant has moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2),
and 12(b)(6). The Defendant argues that (1) the Plaintiffs do not
have Article III standing to bring their claims; and (2) the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. Even setting aside
these threshold issues, the Defendant further contends that the
Plaintiffs' VPPA and UCL claims should be dismissed.
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing
because they have not suffered an injury in fact. The Defendant
argues that Plaintiff Kishore does not have standing to bring his
claims because he was not personally affected by the Meta Pixel.
The Defendant asserts that the Pixel was only ever active on Willow
TV's web platform, and Plaintiff Kishore only ever watched videos
on Willow TV's mobile application.
The Court finds that the FAC sufficiently alleges that Plaintiff
Kishore--as a past subscriber who watched prerecorded videos on
Willow--had his personally identified information ("PII") shared
with Meta by the Pixel.
The Defendant also suggests that even assuming it disclosed their
PII, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that they were injured as
a result.
The Court is not persuaded. As an initial matter, the Defendant's
authorities only address whether the disclosure of PII constitutes
"loss of money or property" for purposes of UCL statutory standing,
and not whether it constitutes an injury in fact for purposes of
Article III. Putting that aside, the Plaintiffs have nevertheless
alleged that they paid more for the Defendant's services than they
otherwise would have had they known the Defendant was disclosing
their video viewing information to unauthorized third parties.
Paying such a price premium meets the standing requirements under
both Article III and the UCL, Judge Gilliam holds. The Court,
therefore, denies the motion to dismiss on this basis.
The Defendant also moves to dismiss the complaint based on lack of
personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs contend that the Court has
specific jurisdiction over the Defendant.
The Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction on the record currently before it.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to permit jurisdictional discovery.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have offered more than just a
hunch that discovery may uncover additional pertinent facts. As
identified, the Plaintiffs have suggested--and the Defendant does
not meaningfully dispute--that Willow TV was run out of California
before it was acquired, and the Defendant may continue to run a
significant part of the Willow TV business from California. The
Defendant maintains an office for Willow TV here, its servers and
collection agent are located here, and the Terms of Use document
which governs its relationship with its subscribers explicitly
applies California law.
Moreover, although the Defendant superficially denied that it has
directed its marketing to and targeted customers in California, the
Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that how specifically or
intentionally the Defendant cultivates this market may be
dispositive on this jurisdictional question. The Court also notes
that the Defendant said nothing about its efforts to target
customers in the United States more broadly.
The Court, therefore, grants the Plaintiffs' request for
jurisdictional discovery and will stay the final determination of
whether it can exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.
The Court, therefore, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss for
lack of standing, but grants the motion for lack of personal
jurisdiction without prejudice. The Court further grants the
Plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery and will permit
Plaintiffs time to conduct this discovery before amending the
complaint and before the parties re-brief this issue.
The Court is aware that jurisdictional discovery could, if
unchecked, improperly bleed into merits discovery. The Court,
therefore, directs the parties to meet and confer about the scope
and duration of jurisdictional discovery and the timing of an
amended complaint, and to file a joint proposal for the Court's
review and approval on Sept. 27, 2024. If the parties cannot reach
an agreement, each side must file their own respective proposal.
Each side may support its respective proposal with no more than
five pages of argument.
The Court further sets case a case management conference on Oct. 8,
2024, at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will be held by Public Zoom Webinar.
All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the
webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg. All
attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for the case management
conference are required to join at least 15 minutes before the
hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy and test internet,
video, and audio capabilities.
Recently, the Plaintiffs urged the Court to set a case management
conference or compel the Defendant to participate in a Rule 26(f)
conference so that the Plaintiffs could begin conducting merits
discovery while the motion to dismiss was pending.
Although the Court has now set a case management conference to
address the question of personal jurisdiction, the Court finds that
there is good cause to stay merits discovery until the question of
personal jurisdiction has been resolved. Accordingly, the Court
denies the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to schedule an initial
conference or compel the Defendant to confer.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 12, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2duna5sw from PacerMonitor.com.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Murphy Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN MURPHY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 9:23-cv-00145-MJT (E.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Michael Truncale entered an order granting in
part and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
class action complaint and incorporated memorandum of law.
The Motion is granted as to Plaintiff's breach of express warranty
claim, breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim,
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim, and fraud by
omission claims. The Motion is denied as to Plaintiff's negligence
claim, negligent design defect claim, and unjust enrichment claim.
It is further ordered that because this is Plaintiff's Original
Complaint, Plaintiff's breach of express warranty claim, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability claim, violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim, and fraud by omission claims are
dismissed without prejudice.
The Plaintiff has 21 days from the date of this Order to file an
amended complaint that repleads their claims with sufficient
factual allegations.
The Court agrees with Toyota that Murphy failed to give Toyota an
opportunity to cure the defect. Murphy relies on an Eighth Circuit
case cited by the Texas Supreme Court to support his argument that
the opportunity to cure is only available to a buyer who rejects
nonconforming goods. In summary, the Court concludes that Murphy
failed to plausibly allege breach of an express warranty.
The Court agrees with Murphy. The Court has determined that Murphy
failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty and implied
warranty of merchantability. Even if Murphy plausibly repleads both
causes of action, he may allege an unjust enrichment claim in the
alternative in the event the fact finder determines that there was
no breach of the warranties.
Murphy filed this class action lawsuit on August 24, 2023. [Dkt.
1]. The Complaint presents seven causes of action: (1) breach of
express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, (3) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
(4) negligent design defect, (5) fraud by omission or fraudulent
concealment, (6) unjust enrichment, and (7) negligence.
In September 2022, Murphy purchased his 2022 Toyota Tundra from
Toyota of Brookhaven in Brookhaven, Mississippi.
Toyota Motor is the operating subsidiary that oversees all
operations of the Toyota Motor Corporation in Canada, Mexico, and
the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vz8QIz at no extra
charge.[CC]
TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Mitchell Seeks to Modify Class Cert Sched Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rhonn Mitchell, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Toyota of Dallas,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01278-N (N.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting joint motion to modify class certification
scheduling order:
The Parties thus request that the Court grant this motion and that
the case schedule be altered as follows:
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 23, 2024
Defendant's Designation of Expert Witnesses Dec. 16, 2024
and Production of Expert Reports:
Plaintiff's Designation of Rebuttal Experts March 11, 2025
and Production of Expert Rebuttal Reports:
Close of Class Certification Discovery: April 14, 2025
Defendant's Service of its Response to May 16, 2025
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification:
Plaintiff's Service of his Reply to June 6, 2025
Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification:
Submission Date: June 27, 2025
This is a class action brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant placed
numerous telephone calls and sent numerous text messages to him
after Plaintiff "opted out" of receiving such solicitations. The
Defendant has answered and denies these claims. The Plaintiff seeks
to certify two classes of similarly situated individuals.
On Jan. 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint1 to
add a cause of action for himself and putative class members who
allegedly received telephone calls from Defendant.
On May 3, 2024, the Court granted the Second Joint Motion to Modify
Class Certification Scheduling Order.
Toyota Motor is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer
headquartered in Toyota City, Aichi, Japan.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2L6xRq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R.
MILTENBERGER, PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092-4322
Telephone: (817) 416-5060
Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Frank J. Catalano, Esq.
Darrell E. Davis, Esq.
CLARK HILL PLC
2600 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Frisco, TX 75034
Telephone: (469) 287-3917
Facsimile: (469) 287-3999
E-mail: fcatalano@clarkhill.com
ddavis@clarkhill.com
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Smith Suit Over Avocado Oil's Deceptive Labels
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SMITH and CLAIR AWAD, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 4:24-cv-06834 (N.D. Cal., September 27, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of California False
Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and New York General Business Law and
for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and
intentional misrepresentation.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Avocado Oil.
The Defendant has marketed, labeled, advertised, and sold its
Avocado Oil to consumers with packaging that has prominently
represented that it is avocado oil. However, unbeknownst to
consumers, the product is adulterated with other oils. Had the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they
would not have purchased the product or would have paid less for
it, says the suit.
Trader Joe's Company is a chain of grocery stores, with its
headquarters in Monrovia, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North 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, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PLLC
867 Boylston Street, 5th 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
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 839-7000
Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com
- and -
Lisa T. Omoto, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Email: lomoto@faruqilaw.com
TRAVEL RESORTS: Chapman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN CHAPMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TRAVEL RESORTS OF AMERICA, INC. Case No. 1:24-cv-00251-CCE-JEP
(M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
a 90-day extension of the current Oct. 8, 2024 deadline to Feb. 11,
2025 to move for class certification.
In support thereof, the parties have exchanged initial discovery
responses and productions. However, the Defendant is still
gathering records of purported consent for the telemarketing calls
it made and the parties have tentatively scheduled depositions in
November that need to be completed prior to the motion being
finally.
Finally, the Plaintiff will be relying on his December expert
report in support of class certification. Counsel for the Plaintiff
has conferred with counsel for the Defendant, who does not oppose
the relief sought in this motion.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EbTlEs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
TULE LAKE LENDING: Crawford Sues Over Usurious Lending Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT CRAWFORD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TULE LAKE LENDING, LLC, d/b/a RESCUE BUCKS,
EIC ENTERPRISES, AGUSTIN GARCIA, APRIL POPADITCH, SARAH BROWN
GARCIA, PENNY MORANDA, and JOHN DOES Nos. 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-04305-TWT (N.D. Ga., September 24, 2024), arises from
Defendants' alleged usurious lending and loansharking practices.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Georgia RICO and
the Payday Lending Act. He alleges that all of the loans made to
Class members and collected by Defendants and Defendants'
co-conspirators included interest rates far in excess of twice the
enforceable rate in their states.
Tule Lake Lending, LLC d/b/a Rescue Bucks, is a tribal lending
entity owned and operated by the Elem Indian Colony of Pomo
Indians, a federally recognized Native American tribe located in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
John R. Bartholomew, IV, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
Facsimile: (770) 227-6373
E-mail: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
jbartholomew@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
E-mail: matt@kellyguzzo.com
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 suit alleges violation of the 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 HEALTHCARE: Summary Judgment Bids in Amy G. Suit Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled AMY G., and GARY G., Plaintiffs v. UNITED
HEALTHCARE, and UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00413-DN (D. Utah), Judge David Nuffer of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah issued a Memorandum Decision and
Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' and the
Defendants' motions for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs Amy G. and Gary G. are natural persons residing in
Dallas County, Texas. A.G. is Amy G. and Gary G.'s minor child. Amy
G., Gary G., and A.G. are covered by an ERISA-governed group health
benefits plan provided through Amy G.'s employer, Geico Corporation
(the "Plan").
A.G. received treatment for his mental health conditions at Second
Nature in the State of Utah from Jan. 2, 2015, through April 8,
2015. A.G. was eligible for benefits under the Plan during the
relevant period in 2015.
The Plan Administrator is Geico Corporation. The Plan's Claims
Administrator is Defendant United Healthcare ("UHC") and its
affiliates, who provide certain claim administration services for
the Plan. Defendant United Behavioral Health ("UBH") is the mental
health claims administrator for the Plan. UHC acts as a third-party
claims administrator throughout the United States and in the State
of Utah.
The case involves claims for benefits and equitable relief under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")
arising from the Defendants' denial of insurance coverage for
"Wilderness Therapy," according to the Complaint and Proposed Class
Action ("Complaint") filed on May 17, 2017.
The Plaintiffs' child, A.G., received treatment for his mental
health conditions at Second Nature Wilderness Family Therapy
("Second Nature") from Jan. 2, 2015, through April 8, 2015. The
Plaintiffs sought coverage for this treatment through a self-funded
benefits plan insured by Plaintiff Amy G.'s employer (the "Plan").
Judge Nuffer notes that the stipulated administrative record for
the Plaintiffs' claim for benefits and administrative appeal
process (the "Admin. Record") was filed under seal in six parts on
July 30, 2021.
The Defendants administer claims for benefits under the Plan. They
paid a portion of the Plaintiffs' claims relating to the individual
and group therapy sessions A.G. attended at Second Nature. But the
Defendants denied coverage for treatment they deemed "Wilderness
Therapy" based on the Plan's exclusion for "Experimental or
Investigational or Unproven Services."
The Plaintiffs seeks summary judgment on their claim for benefits
(the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed Aug. 4, 2021).
They argue that the Defendants failed to follow ERISA and the
Plan's claim procedure requirements, offering untimely and
insufficient explanation and analysis to justify the denial of
benefits. The Plaintiffs further argue that the Defendants wrongly
determined that A.G's wilderness treatment at Second Nature was
experimental, investigational, or unproven.
The Defendants also seek summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims
-- Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, which was filed July
30, 2021 (redacted version), and filed under seal on July 30, 2021
(unredacted version). The Defendants argue that they substantially
complied with ERISA and the Plan's claim procedure requirements,
and that the decision to deny coverage for A.G's wilderness
treatment was not arbitrary and capricious.
Because the Defendants failed to provide a sufficient explanation
and analysis for the denial of benefits, Judge Nuffer finds the
Defendants' determination that the Plan excluded coverage for
A.G.'s treatment at Second Nature was arbitrary and capricious.
However, because it is unclear whether the Plaintiffs are entitled
to benefits under the Plan for this treatment, Judge Nuffer holds
it is necessary to remand the Plaintiffs' claim for benefits to the
Defendants for reevaluation and redetermination.
Judge Nuffer holds that determination of whether prejudgment
interest and attorney's fees are appropriate is reserved pending
the reevaluation and redetermination of the Plaintiffs' claim for
benefits. Additionally, because the Plaintiffs represent that they
are no longer pursuing equitable relief, the Defendants are
entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claim for equitable
relief.
Judge Nuffer opines, among other things, that the Defendants'
failure to respond to the arguments and materials in the
Plaintiffs' appeals does not render their benefits decisions
arbitrary and capricious. However, the Defendants' failure to
provide sufficient explanation and analysis for the denial of
benefits renders their benefits decisions arbitrary and capricious.
Judge Nuffer adds that the Defendants' denial of benefits for
A.G.'s treatment at Second Nature was arbitrary and capricious
because they failed to provide a sufficient explanation and
analysis for the denial of benefits.
The Court rules that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is
granted in part and denied in part, and the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
(1) The Plaintiffs' claim for benefits is remanded to the
Defendants for reevaluation and redetermination;
(2) The Plaintiffs' claim for equitable relief is dismissed
with prejudice; and
(3) Determination of whether prejudgment interest and
attorney's fees are appropriate is reserved pending the
Defendants' reevaluation and redetermination of the
Plaintiffs' claim for benefits.
Judge Nuffer also orders that the Plaintiffs' claim for benefits is
remanded to the Defendants for reevaluation and redetermination.
The Defendants must perform the reevaluation of the Plaintiffs'
claim for benefits and inform the Plaintiffs of their benefits
decision within 30 days.
In performing the reevaluation and redetermination, the Defendants
are precluded from denying benefits on any basis other than the
Plan's exclusion for "Experimental or Investigational or Unproven
Services." And any denial of benefits must include specific
explanation and analysis, as required by ERISA and the Plan's claim
procedure.
The Clerk is directed to administratively close the case. Within 14
days after the Defendants provide the Plaintiffs with notice of
their determination on the Plaintiffs' claim for benefits, either
party may file a motion to reopen the case for further proceedings.
Any motion to reopen the case must identify the legal basis on
which the case may be reopened and the specific issue or issues for
which determination is sought.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
Sept. 12, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/22urnzvp from
PacerMonitor.com.
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Burton Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN BURTON, v. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, DENNIS RICHARD MCDONOUGH and DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS, Case No. 8:23-cv-01372-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered an order as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, construed as an
Objection to the Report and Recommendation, is overruled.
2. The Report and Recommendation entered by United States
Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn on Sept. 9, 2024, is adopted,
confirmed, and approved in all respects and is made a part of
this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.
3. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied,
and
this action is dismissed.
4. Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Ad Testificandum is denied.
5. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and
deadlines and close this case.
6. Plaintiff is advised that future violations of the filing
injunction may result in monetary sanctions.
The Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Department of Veteran
Affairs on June 20, 2023, to challenge the denial of his
application to receive benefits from the Veteran Rapid Retraining
Assistance Program ("VRRAP") due to his age.
In his construed Objection, Plaintiff first challenges the R&R's
application of a filing injunction issued by the Middle District of
Florida's Fort Myers division to the instant action in the Tampa
division. He also challenges the injunction's notice requirement.
United States. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of
North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending
the nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m54L25 at no extra
charge.[CC]
VANTAGE SUPPORTED: Green Must File Class Cert Bid by June 15, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIKKI GREEN, On behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. VANTAGE SUPPORTED
LIVING, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04061-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Brian Wimes entered a scheduling order for class certification:
1. This case is set for a telephone conference on Oct. 10,
2025,
at 9:00 a.m. to schedule a trial date and related deadlines.
2. The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification
on
or before June 15, 2025.
3. The parties shall amend all pleadings and add parties on or
before Dec. 15, 2024.
4. If discovery is to be exchanged pursuant to a Protective
Order,
the following procedures apply.
5. All pretrial discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of
Civil
Procedure and related to Class Discovery shall be completed
on
or before May 15, 2025.
Vantage is a state licensed provider of Individualized Supported
Living for adults with developmental disabilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yHEejH at no extra
charge.[CC]
VERISOURCE SERVICES: Wagner Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Scott Wagner, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Verisource Services, Inc., Case No.
2024-58711 was removed from the County of Harris, District Court of
Texas, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on Oct. 1, 2024, and assigned Case No.
4:24-cv-03718.
In the Petition, Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff and Class Members
had their sensitive information exposed after an unknown actor
accessed Defendant's systems. The Plaintiff asserts causes of
action for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Amanda N. Harvey, Esq.
Kayleigh J. Watson, Esq.
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
1452 Hughes Rd Suite 200
Grapevine, TX 76051
Phone: 267/930-1697
Facsimile: 267/930-4771
Email: aharvey@mullen.law
kwatson@mullen.law
VOORHEES TOWNSHIP: Deferro Sues Over Unlawful Registration Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Deferro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VOORHEES TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY, Case No. CAM-L-002561-24
(N.J. Super. Ct., Camden Cty., Aug. 21, 2024), is brought on behalf
of a proposed class of New Jersey citizens who were charged
unlawful "abandoned" property registration fees of between $500 and
$2,500 per year as part of Defendant Voorhees Township's
Registration Program for Vacant, Abandoned, and Defaulted Mortgage
Properties (the "Program").
The Defendant Voorhees Township amended the Program and its
enabling ordinance in 2022, ostensibly to comply with New Jersey
law as interpreted by the above opinion. However, Defendant
Voorhees Township never refunded the monies it collected from
Plaintiff and the class pursuant to the unconstitutional, ultra
vires, and unlawful Program at issue herein.
Voorhees Township's ordinances authorizing the creation and
administration of the unlawful Program, and the Program
itself--which ran approximately from 2014 through 2022--were
unconstitutional, ultra vires, and contrary to New Jersey law.
This lawsuit seeks, inter alia, an order directing that the annual
registration fees of between $500 and $2,500 per property which
were assessed and paid to Defendant by Plaintiff and the class
under the unlawful Program be refunded, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was charged multiple Program registration fees
totaling $2,296.49 by Defendant in 2017, 2018, and 2019.
Voorhees Township is located in Camden County, New Jersey, and is
organized as a municipality under the constitution and laws of the
State of New Jersey, and is a citizen of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
Shane T. Prince, Esq.
DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
Marlton, NJ 08053
Phone: (856) 797-9951
Fax: (856) 797-9978
Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Galpern, Esq,
Geoffrey J. Smith, Esq,
JAVERBAUM, WURGAFT, HICKS, KAHN, WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C.
1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Ste. 203
Voorhees, NJ 08043
Phone: (856) 596-4100
Fax: (856) 702-6640
Email: mgalpern@lawjw.com
WALMART INC: Class Settlement in Haro Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Haro, et al., v. Walmart
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00239 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 23, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order that in light of the
pending motion for final approval of class action settlement, the
motions related to the motion for class certification and
opposition shall be administratively terminated and will be
re-activated, if necessary.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States and 23 other countries.[CC]
WALMART INC: Ivanoff Seeks to Certify Nationwide 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 their proposed nationwide class and subclasses;
-- 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 Plaintiffs propose the following Class and 3 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
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' failure to implement
adequate warnings and develop and sell a defective product caused
them damage.
The Plaintiffs move to certify a Class of all persons who purchased
a Mainstays candle from March 15, 2015, to present. Because the
Plaintiffs and the Class Members were all victims of the same
negligence of Defendants and were harmed in the same or similar
manner, the Plaintiffs are typical of the Class and applicable
Subclasses.
The adequacy requirement is also satisfied because Plaintiffs have
no conflict with other Class Members, are committed to pursuing the
Class's claims, and have retained experienced counsel.
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 Oct. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dxv2na at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
MCINNES LAW LLC
1900 W. 75th Street, Suite 220
Prairie Village, Kansas 66208
Telephone: (913) 220-2488
Facsimile: (913) 273-1671
E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com
- and -
Gregory S. Reichenbach, Esq.
REICHENBACH LAW
Walbridge, OH 43465-0438
Telephone: (567) 331-2259
Facsimile: (419) 529-8310
E-mail: 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
WEBMD, LLC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Cert. Tossed
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMERA SWEETON, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WEBMD, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00094-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."
WebMD offers consumers medical and healthcare information through
its free health and wellness web site.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cZ26OH at no extra
charge.[CC]
WEST COAST WOUND: Lambert Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
--------------------------------------------------------
Monica Lambert, individuals, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. WEST COAST WOUND AND SKIN CARE INC., a California
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV25427 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 1, 2024), is brought pursuant to
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), Cal Labor Code
as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay compensations
including overtime wages.
The Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of:
failing to comply with California Law concerning payment of lawful
wage for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; failing
to provide rest breaks; failing to provide uninterrupted meal
breaks; failing to reimburse for required business expenses; and
failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements and record
keeping violations. Defendant is therefore liable for civil
penalties under the Cal. Labor Code, including the PAGA, Labor
Code, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Case Manager and
Scheduler.
WEST COAST WOUND AND SKIN CARE INC. is a California non-profit
corporation authorized to do business and doing business in
California with the capacity to sue and to be sued, and doing
business, in the county of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
Hilary Silvia, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
hilary@koullaw.com
WILLIAM WARREN GROUP: Cosby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The William Warren
Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Donalejhia Cosby, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. The William
Warren Group, Inc., William Warren Properties, Inc., Storquest Self
Storage, 8627 Thornton SP, LLC dba Storquest-Stockton/Thornton,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0012590 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., Oct. 1, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
The William Warren Group -- https://www.williamwarren.com/ -- is a
real estate management and development company located in
California.[BN]
WYNDHAM VACATION: Kirchner Appeals Denied Motion to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN ERIC KIRCHNER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order denying their motion for class certification and motion for
an evidentiary hearing and for leave to file a trial plan in the
lawsuit entitled Steven Eric Kirchner, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wyndham
Vacation Resorts Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1-20-cv-00436, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this putative
class action arises from alleged omissions and misrepresentations
made in timeshare sales presentations by the Defendant. The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendant fails to disclose to
prospective Wyndham timeshare owners that instead of purchasing
Wyndham timeshares for an average price of $21,000, they can often
obtain equal or greater access to Wyndham resort destinations at an
equal or lesser cost without buying timeshares. The Prospective
owners are not told of the significant availability issues of
trying to book through the Wyndham Owner website,
myclubwyndham.com, nor are they told that due to ever increasing
annual maintenance fees, it will be often cheaper to go to the same
destinations without being a Wyndham timeshare Owner.
On Oct. 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class.
On July 30, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for an evidentiary
hearing on class certification and for leave to file a trial plan.
On Sept. 13, 2024, Judge Richard G. Andrews denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and motion for an evidentiary
hearing and for leave to file a trial plan. The Court held that the
Plaintiffs have failed to show that the proposed Rule 23(b)(3)
classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by
representation.
The appellate case is captioned Steven Kirchner, et al. v. Wyndham
Vacation Resorts Inc., Case No. 24-8035, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on September 25, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners STEVEN ERIC KIRCHNER, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Herbert W. Mondros, Esq.
RIGRODSKY LAW
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5304
- and –
Howard Prossnitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD PROSSNITZ
1014 Ontario Street
Oak Park, IL 60302
Telephone: (708) 203-5747
- and –
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Gina Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Defendant-Respondent WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS INC. is represented
by:
Nancy S. Rappaport, Esq.
DLA PIPER
1650 Market Street
One Liberty Place, Suite 5000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 656-3357
YOUNG LIVING: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE O'SHAUGHNESSY,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, v. YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC D/B/A YOUNG LIVING
ESSENTIAL OILS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00470-HCN-CMR (D. Utah), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a seven-day
extension of time to file its reply in support of the Defendant's
motion for reconsideration.
The Defendant requests that the Court grant this motion and extend
the deadline to file its Reply to Oct. 8, 2024.
The Defendant's reply is currently due by Oct. 1, 2024. With the
extension, Defendant's reply will be due by Oct. 8, 2024.
The time extension will allow Defendant and its counsel ample time
to properly brief this important issue pending before the Court.
The Plaintiff does not oppose the relief requested in this motion.
Young Living sells essential oils and other related products.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Dk2v0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeremy A. Fielding, Esq.
Jon David Kelley, Esq.
Rachael A. Rezabek, Esq.
Aysha M. Spencer, Esq.
Stefan H. Atkinson, Esq.
Christopher X. Fernandez, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
4550 Travis Street
Dallas, TX 75205
Telephone: (214) 972-1770
Facsimile: (214) 972-1771
E-mail: jeremy.fielding@kirkland.com
jon.kelley@kirkland.com
rachael.rezabek@kirkland.com
aysha.spencer@kirkland.com
stefan.atkinson@kirkland.com
christopher.fernandez@kirkland.com
- and -
Robert S. Clark, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Hunt, Esq.
David C. Reymann, Esq.
Bryan S. Johansen, Esq.
PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
101 S 200 E Ste 700
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-7840
Facsimile: (801) 532-7750
E-mail: rclark@parrbrown.com
jhunt@parrbrown.com
dreymann@parrbrown.com
bjohansen@parrbrown.com
YOUR HOMETOWN: Clardy Plaintiffs Win Conditional Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND CLARDY and IMANI
ARMSTRONG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. YOUR HOMETOWN MOVERS LLC d/b/a YOUR HOMETOWN MOVERS
and JAKE FREEDMAN and KATE FREEDMAN, individually, Case No.
7:23-cv-11172-NSR-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nelson Roman
entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification.
The conditionally certified class includes current and former
employees who worked as movers and truck drivers for the Defendant
Your Hometown Movers LLC d/b/a Your Hometown Mover.
The Plaintiffs' notice and consent forms are also approved as to
content and method of distribution.
The Court entered an order that on or before Oct. 15, 2024, the
Defendants shall produce to Plaintiffs' counsel a computer-readable
list of all movers and truck drivers who were employed at Your
Hometown Movers LLC d/b/a Your Hometown Mover at any point in the
six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit along with the
following information: name, last known mailing address, alternate
address (if any), all known telephone numbers, e-mail address, and
dates of employment at Your Hometown Movers LLC d/b/a Your Hometown
Mover.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No.
26.
In a Complaint filed on Dec. 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs assert Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims on
behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated.
The Plaintiffs allege under federal and state law that the
Defendants failed to pay them in compliance with the FLSA's
overtime wage provisions.
The Plaintiffs worked as movers and truck drivers ("Laborers") for
the Defendants.
Your Hometown provides local and long distance moving services to
the Hudson Valley and surrounding communities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gTxqCT at no extra
charge.[CC]
*********
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 ***