/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241014.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 14, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 206
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Killeen Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Manian Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Molakas Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Ries Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
ADAPTHEALTH LLC: Myrick Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
AJC JEWELRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Abreu Suit Alleges
ALBERT'S LANDSCAPING: Mejia Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Landscapers
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Arroyo Sues Over No Value Gift Cards
ALCHEMME LLC: Heermann Suit Transferred to C.D. California
ALDO US: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Alleges
ALLCARE PLUS: Brown Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Schott Sues Over Reduced Total Loss Coverage
AMAZON.COM INC: Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing Sought
AMERICAS 2122: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Property
APPLE COMMUTER: Seeks More Time to Oppose Abuladze Class Cert Bid
APPLE INC: Gollahon Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
AVIS RENT: Thomas Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info
BANK OF AMERICA: OTC Plaintiffs Seek OK to File Exhibits Under Seal
BANK OF AMERICA: OTC Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class
BANK OF THE WEST: Manzo Seeks Extension of Briefing Deadlines
BAYPORT FUNDING: 222 Bay Sues Over Improper Business Practices
BESTWAY USA: Faces Harper Suit Over Defective Spa Pumps
BINGHAMTON PRECAST: Shara Conditional Collective Cert. Bid OK'd
BIO-LAB INC: Fails to Handle Hazardous Chemicals, Reyes Suit Claims
BLOOMINGTON INC: Fiorito Seeks Relief for Civil Rights Violations
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Says
BRICKHOUSE ATHLETICS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Calcano Says
BRIDGE IT INC: Radomski Suit Removed to N.D. California
BUMBLE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 25
BUZZBALLZ LLC: Faces Bullock Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CARECENTRIX INC: Conditional Collective Certification Partly OK'd
CBE COMPANIES: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Schlicher Suit Says
CBIZ BENEFITS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Giddings Says
CBIZ INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Marcum LLP
CE SOLUTIONS: Butskhrikidze et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches
CENTURY MEDICAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Raheel Suit Says
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Ellerbee Alleges Unsecured Info
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Harper Seeks to Certify Two Classes
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Denial of Harper Class Cert Bid
CHEMTOOL INC: Members Encounter Missing Claims Problem
CITGO PETROLEUM: $10-Mil. ERISA Suit Settlement Granted Prelim OK
CITIZENS BANK: Salter Suit Removed to M.D. Alabama
COLORADO: Inmates Seek Class Cert. in Forced Labor Suit
COMMUNITY CLINIC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aleuta Says
COVENANT CARE: Sued Over Failure to Implement Cybersecurity
CVS HEALTH: Bandage Products Contains Toxic Chemicals, Bourne Says
D2C LLC: Florida Fed. Court Refuses to Certify Video Privacy Suit
DATTO INC: Dinnerman Appeals False Ad Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
DAVID'S BRIDAL: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Martinez Suit Says
DAVIS AND DAVIS: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Meier Suit Claims
DEACONESS ILLINOIS: Discloses Personal Info Meta, Doe Suit Alleges
DEREK SCHUMM: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Goldman
DOS HOMBRES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Bullock Suit Says
EAST LOS ANGELES: Diaz Seeks Nursing Assistants' Unpaid Overtime
ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH: Barpar Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
ENDAVA PLC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 25
EQUAL EXCHANGE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
EVO BRANDS: Amiel Sues Over Electronic Cigarettes' False Ads
EXPERT CONSULTING: Devany Seeks Budtenders' Unpaid Tips Under FLSA
FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Roofing Class Action Suit
FOREMOST INSURANCE: Ct. Directs Filing of Samuelle Discovery Plan
FULTON BANK: Alexander Sues Over Unlawful Multiple Fees
GATEWAY CHURCH: Church Members Sue Over Tithe Misappropriation
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Griffin Sues Over Unpaid Wages
GITLAB INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 4
GREEN FLAMINGO: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Robles Alleges
GRIFOLS BIOLOGICALS: Henry Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
GUARANTEED HOME: Faces Ocampo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
HALLKEEN MANAGEMENT: Cassamas Sues Over Violation of Rights
HANWHA IMPACT: Polk Sues Over Discrimination, Wrongful Termination
HESS CORP: Conspires to Restrict Crude Oil Production, Suit Says
HIGHER EDUCATION: Maldonado Sues Over Failure to Suspend Loans
HILL'S PET: Fact Discovery Due Jan. 31, 2025
IOVATE HEALTH: Senior Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
ITERIS INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Almaviva S.p.A.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Collaza Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
KEURIG GREEN: Groff Appeals 2nd Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
KEVITA INC: Pitre Suit Removed to N.D. California
LA LIBRAIRIE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Chairawati Says
LABOR SOURCE: Speight Seeks Reconsideration of Sept. 23 Order
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Appeals Class Certification Order in Aley Suit
LOBSTER HUB: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Tip Pooling
LZG INTERNATIONAL: Carey Sues Over False Financial Statements
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Executives Must Face Securities Class Suit
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
MAXIMUS HUMAN SERVICES: Andrisani Suit Removed to E.D. California
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA: Meltzer Files Suit in C.D. California
MCLAUGHLIN BODY: Hagerman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MDL 2262: Plaintiffs Seek Permission to File Exhibits Under Seal
MDL 2262: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify LIBOR-Based Instrument Class
MDL 2873: Faces McDonald Suit Over Concealed AFFF Health Hazards
MDL 2873: Mays Suit Seeks Damages Over AFFF Exposure
METHODE ELECTRONICS: CCMGERP Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
MICHAEL POMPEO: Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Class Cert Order Granted
MICHAEL RABB: Mofrad Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
MICHAELS STORES: Azizian Suit Removed to C.D. California
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $750,000
MULTIPLAN INC: Sued Over Unlawful Misconduct
MUR II INC: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Musa Suit Says
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE: Catty Sues Over Unpaid Wages
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Hansen Sues Over Sherman Act Violation
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Deselms Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
OHIO STATE: Pryor Sues Over Violation of Sherman Antitrust Act
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Roper Suit
ONEPATH CUSTODIANS: Settles Commission Class Suit for $50-Mil.
ONETOUCHPOINT CORP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Breach Suit
OREGON COMMUNITY CREDIT: Arthur Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Violates New York Warn Act, Hagins Suit Alleges
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Ratliff Sues Over Illegal Biometric Collection
PERRY RUSSELL: Jones Seeks to Stay Case Proceedings
PERRY RUSSELL: Lyons Seeks to Stay Case Proceedings
PERRY RUSSELL: Rice Seeks to Stay Case Proceedings
PERRY RUSSELL: Thompson Seeks to Stay Case Proceedings
PRESTAMOS CDFI: Seeks to File Confidential Info Under Seal
PRESTAMOS CDFI: Seeks to Strike Marshall Plaintiffs' Expert Reports
R. G. BARRY: Picon Sues Over Website's Barriers to Blind Users
REVCO SOLUTIONS: Ettenger Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
RIVERSIDE RESORT: Hansen Sues Over Private Data Breach
RIVERSIDEFM INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Calcano Alleges
ROYAL GARDENS: Edwards Sues Over Failure to Pay Hours Worked
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Fox Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Cert Hearing Set for May 6, 2025
SENIOR LIFE: Matthews Sues Over Unlawful Telephone Marketing
SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Chow Seeks to Certify Class Action
SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngaas Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Response to Class Cert Brief Due Nov. 3
STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Breaches Statutory Obligation, Dinsmore Alleges
SYSCO KANSAS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Harms Says
TARGET CORPORATION: Ullrich Sues Over False Price Advertisements
TERRAN ORBITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 26
TEXAS DOW EMPLOYEES: Johnson Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
THEORY LLC: Demaio Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Class Cert Replies Modified to Oct. 30
U.S. NURSING: Greene Suit Removed to S.D. California
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gonzalez Sues Over Unfair Competition Law
UNITED STATES: Bourque Sues to Challenge Unlawful Fees
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA: Union Sues Over Post-Tenure Review
VIE DE FRANCE: Borge Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 1.1 TB Data Breach
WARNER MUSIC: Hall Bid to Maintain Certain Exhibits Under Seal OK'd
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Flumerfelt Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Luckett Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit
WORKRISE SOLUTIONS: Crawley Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
YOUNG CONSULTING: Werber Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
YOUNG CONSULTING: Werber Sues Over Compromised Customers' Info
*********
3M COMPANY: Killeen Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Killeen, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05504-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 2, 2024), is brought for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, 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 which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Testicular Cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Manian Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Manian, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05497-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 2, 2024), is brought for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, 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 which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Malignant neoplasm of kidney as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Molakas Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Molakas, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05501-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 2, 2024), is brought for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, 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 which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Ulcerative Colitis as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
3M COMPANY: Ries Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Ries, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05495-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 2, 2024), is brought for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, 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 which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Hypothyroidism, Ulcerative Colitis as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
23710 US Hwy A-1
Fairhope, AL 36532
Phone: (205) 252-6127
Facsimile: (205) 449-1132
Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com
ADAPTHEALTH LLC: Myrick Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DILLON MYRICK, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ADAPTHEALTH, LLC;
HOME MEDICAL EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-00484-JDK (E.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of a class of people who were on
AdaptHealth's IDNC Registry, or should have been on AdaptHealth's
IDNC Registry, and who then received AdaptHealth telemarketing
calls.
The Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint him as Class
Representative and that his counsel be appointed Class Counsel.
The class certification requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied.
The Plaintiff's counsel is already committed substantial financial
resources to this case and is prepared to hire experts to assist
with class notice and other issues if the matter proceeds to trial.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel is competent and adequate to
represent the proposed Classes.
The Plaintiff brings this Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") against the Defendant for placing illegal telemarketing
calls to residential subscribers nationwide who are on the
Do-Not-Call List.
AdaptHealth operates as a full-service home medical equipment
company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j6dyhp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
Alexander G. Kykta, Esq.
LLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
alex@ellzeylaw.com
AJC JEWELRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Abreu Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO AMABLE FERNANDEZ ABREU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AJC JEWELRY CONTRACTING
CORP.; LEONARD SMITH; DION SMITH; and ADAM RIVERA, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-07473 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 2024) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Abreu was employed by the Defendants as a jewelry
worker.
AJC Jewelry Contracting Corp. is a full service manufacturer of
fine jewelry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
ALBERT'S LANDSCAPING: Mejia Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Landscapers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER MEJIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTO FUENTES and ALBERT'S LANDSCAPING
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06965 (E.D.N.Y., October 2,
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 pay minimum wages,
failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, and failure to furnish accurate wage
notices.
Mr. Walter was employed by the Defendants as a landscaper, driver,
tree pruner/installer, and overall yard maintenance/construction
worker from 2014 to 2018, then again from March 2022 to August
2024.
Albert's Landscaping Inc. is a landscaping services provider based
in Albertson, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
Hempstead, NY 11550
Telephone: (516) 280-4600
Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Arroyo Sues Over No Value Gift Cards
----------------------------------------------------------
David Ferrer Arroyo, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV22679 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 4, 2024),is brought as a result
of the Defendant's Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); Violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"); Violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL");
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; Unjust Enrichment,
seeking relief from Defendant's practice of selling gift cards to
California consumers for specified monetary values where the gift
cards actually have no value and are thus worthless to the
consumers.
Despite the Defendants' knowledge of this issue, ALBERTSONS sold
Mr. Ferrer four worthless gift cards for which he paid a
substantial amount of money to the Defendants. In response to Mr.
Ferrer's complaints related to this business practice, the
Defendants admitted it is aware of this issue but did not rectify
it for Plaintiff, the putative class, and the general public. The
Plaintiff thus brings claims under the UCL, the CLRA, the FAL, for
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability and for Unjust
Enrichment. Plaintiff seeks a refund of the monies paid to
Defendant, actual damages, statutory damages, classwide relief,
permanent public injunctive relief and all other relief that the
Court deems is necessary and proper, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff visited Albertsons' Grocery Store located in San
Dimas, California, and purchased four $400 Vanilla Gift Cards.
ALBERTSONS is a multistate corporation that operates a chain of
grocery stores, including without limitation, Albertsons, Vons,
Pavilions, and Safeway, selling goods to consumers throughout
California and nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
Amy Johnsgard, Esq.
Aya Dardari, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 400-4990
Email: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com
ajohnsgard@sshhzlaw.com
adardari@sshhzlaw.com
- and -
Joshua A. Fields, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
9415 Culver Blvd., #115
Culver City, CA 90232-2616
Phone: (619) 400-4990
Email: jfields@sshhzlaw.com
ALCHEMME LLC: Heermann Suit Transferred to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jamie Heermann, Bianca Jackson, Cole Scroggs,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Alchemme, LLC, Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Taro
Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., RB Health (US) LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-00195 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Sept. 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07550-SB-BFM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Alchemee -- https://www.alchemee.com/ -- offers pro-active and
restorative elements services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (805) 270-7100
Fax: (805) 270-7589
Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Melody R. Dickson, Esq.
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
WAGSTAFF AND CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 701-1170
Fax: (816) 531-2372
Email: mdickson@wcllp.com
tcartmell@wcllp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David S. Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, Esq.
WILLIAMS AND CONNOLLY LLP
680 Maine Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20024
Phone: (202) 434-5676
Fax: (202) 434-5029
Email: dkurtzer@wc.com
- and -
Sandra J. Wunderlich, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
100 South Fourth Street Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 256-2544
Fax: (314) 256-2549
Email: sandra.wunderlich@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Kathleen Anne Stricklin, Esq.
Zachary Reed Glasser, Esq.
WALSWORTH, LLP
19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1150
Irvine, CA 92612-8433
Phone: (714) 634-2522
Fax: (714) 634-0686
Email: kstricklin@wfbm.com
zglasser@cov.com
- and -
Andrew J. Soukup, Esq.
COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 662-6000
Fax: (202) 662-6291
Email: asoukup@cov.com
- and -
Cailynn Danielle Hayter, Esq.
Christopher Gramling, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 474-6550
Fax: (816) 421-5547
Email: chayter@shb.com
cgramling@shb.com
- and -
Kristen A. Cooke, Esq.
SWANSON MARTIN AND BELL LLP
330 North Wabash, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 321-3513
Fax: (312) 321-0990
Email: kcooke@smbtrials.com
ALDO US: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Aldo U.S. Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-03819 (D. Minn., Oct.
4, 2024) contends that the Defendant's website, www.aldoshoes.com,
is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who
have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
its implementing regulations and asserts a companion cause of
action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
As a consequence of the Plaintiff's experience visiting the
Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an
investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the
Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny
screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important
Website content – content the Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users, the suit says.
The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence
of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and
discriminated against by the Defendant's failure to provide its
online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible
with screen reader technology.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online
store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual
disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section
363A.29, subd. 4 (2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant
to Minn. Stat. section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat.
section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023).
Aldo offers shoes, bags, and accessories for sale including
athletic, sneakers, heels, sandals, crossbody bags, totes,
clutches, jewelry, and more.[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
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
ALLCARE PLUS: Brown Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celeste Brown and Ross Finesmith, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ALLCARE PLUS PHARMACY LLC, Case No.
2484CV02366 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Sept. 5, 2024), is
brought arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly
sensitive data.
As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI")--together the "Protected Information"--about its current
and former patients and employees. But Defendant lost control over
that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently
protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach").
It is unknown precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to
Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other
words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop,
or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing
cybercriminals unrestricted access to the Protected Information.
On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train
its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's Protected
Information. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's
Protected Information in a vulnerable position—rendering them
easy targets for cybercriminals. The Plaintiffs are Data Breach
victims having received breach notices from Defendant. They bring
this class action on behalf of themselves, and all others harmed by
Defendant's misconduct, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are Data Breach victims.
The Defendant is a Massachusetts based pharmaceutical company
providing patient support services and specializing in complex
medication management.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (508) 221-1510
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: 872.263.1100
Email: cmiller@straussborrelli.com
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Schott Sues Over Reduced Total Loss Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN SCHOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE
PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-00136-CDL (M.D. Ga., October 2, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of contract, fraud, declaratory
relief, and equitable relief.
The case arises from a deceptive and unfair scheme through which
the Allstate Defendants systematically redefine and rewrite the
coverage their insurance policies provide to Georgia insureds who
make claims for vehicles determined to be a total loss. The
Allstate Defendants routinely flaunt their obligation to their
insureds who bring claims for total-loss vehicles by directing
their software vendor to systematically exclude from coverage a
percentage of a dealer's price from the actual cost of a comparable
replacement vehicle, to reduce their total-loss coverage. As a
result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals suffered damages, says the suit.
Allstate Insurance Company is an insurance company, headquartered
in Northbrook, Illinois.
Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance
company, headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
N. Kirkland Pope, Esq.
POPE, McGLAMRY, KILPATRICK, MORRISON & NORWOOD, P.C.
3391 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 523-7706
Facsimile: (404) 524-1648
Email: efile@pmkm.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MARTINHO, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; and AMAZON.COM SERVICES
LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Case No.
4:22-cv-06849-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order that:
1. The last day to complete private mediation shall be continued
from Oct. 25, 2024 to March 1, 2025.
2. The last day to file Plaintiff's motion for class
certification
shall be continued from Dec. 30, 2024 to May 1, 2025.
3. The last day to file Amazon's opposition to any motion for
class
certification shall be continued from Feb. 10, 2025 to June
12,
2025.
4. The last day to file Plaintiff's reply to Amazon's opposition
to
any motion for class certification shall be July 11, 2025.
5. The class certification hearing shall be continued from March
25, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. to July 22, 2025 at 2:00 p.m.
Amazon needs time to analyze the new claims and theories proposed
by Plaintiff so that the Parties can discuss and agree upon the
scope of the mediation so all Parties can adequately prepare; The
mediation with Tripper Ortman is now continued from Oct. 18, 2024
to Feb. 3, 2025, the first available date from Mr. Ortman.
The Parties have agreed to continue the class certification
briefing and ADR Completion deadlines as follows, so that they may
continue to dedicate their time and efforts towards preparing for
Feb. 3, 2025 mediation.
On July 24, 2023, the Court issued its Case Management and Pretrial
Order referring the matter to private mediation, and setting a
deadline by which the private mediation must be complete as well as
class certification briefing deadlines and a hearing date.
On April 30, 2024, the Court approved the Parties' stipulation to
continue the class certification briefing and ADR completion
deadlines.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9MXPsd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
The Defendants are represented by:
Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq.
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
Megan Cooney, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: BHamburger@gibsondunn.com
LBlas@gibsondunn.com
MCooney@gibsondunn.com
AMERICAS 2122: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Property
------------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAS 2122, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-23824 (S.D. Fla., October 3, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of its property and business. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered
architectural barriers in common areas such parking, entrance
access and path of travel, and public restrooms.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove
the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when
such removal is readily achievable for the place of public
accommodation.
Americas 2122, LLC is a commercial property owner and operator
doing business in Miami Dade County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com
APPLE COMMUTER: Seeks More Time to Oppose Abuladze Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abuladze et al., v. Apple
Commuter, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08684-MMG-RFT (S.D.N.Y.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a
thirty-day extension of time, from Oct. 7, 2024, to Nov. 6, 2024,
for the Defendants to oppose Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
As the Court is aware, the parties attended a second mediation
session with Court-appointed mediator Zachary Fasman on Sept. 20,
2024. Thereafter, Mr. Fasman issued a mediator's proposal which, if
accepted by all parties, would resolve this action in principle.
Since the deadline to respond to the proposal and the deadline for
Defendants to oppose Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
fall on the same day (October 7), the Defendants request that the
Court grant one final adjournment of the briefing schedule for
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to permit the parties to
focus their efforts on a potential final resolution.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PlY6tt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph A. Gusmano, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 247-4700
Facsimile: (631) 760-8315
E-mail: jgusmano@littler.com
APPLE INC: Gollahon Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Sean Gollahon, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07589 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 7, 2024), is brought asserts, on his behalf and other
similarly situated current and former employees of Apple who the
company employs and employed in similar manual labor positions, an
untimely payment of wages claim under N.Y. Lab. Law.
It is Apple's uniform policy to pay its specialists, technical
specialists, pros, genius bar administrators, technical experts,
geniuses, lead geniuses, operation experts, inventory specialists,
operation leads and others in similar manual labor positions every
14 days, not every week.
By delaying payment to Plaintiff Gollahon and Apple's other
specialists, technical specialists, pros, genius bar
administrators, technical experts, geniuses, lead geniuses,
operation experts, inventory specialists, operation leads and
others in similar manual labor positions, they were underpaid for
the work they performed; they were deprived of money that they are
owed and need; the value of the money, when eventually paid, is
less than it would have been if they were timely paid; and they
were not able to purchase everything they would have purchased if
timely paid, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant Apple Inc. as a specialist,
technical specialist, operations expert, genius bar administrator,
and pro.
Apple owns and operates more than 20 New York locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: 212.392.4772
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
AVIS RENT: Thomas Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
BILL D. THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-09604 (D.N.J., October 3, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied contract, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems
following a data breach from August 3, 2024, to August 6, 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.
Avis Rent A Car System, LLC is a rental car company, headquartered
in Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205
San Juan, PR 00907
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
- and -
Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
BRONSON LEGAL LLC
1216 Broadway, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
Email: kbronson@bronsonlegalllc.com
BANK OF AMERICA: OTC Plaintiffs Seek OK to File Exhibits Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Principal Funds, Inc. et
al., v. Bank of America Corporation et al. (re LIBOR-Based
Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation), Case No. 1:13-cv-06013
(S.D.N.Y.), the OTC Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting request permission to file under seal:
(1) the memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits submitted
in
support of OTC Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as
to
Defendants Credit Suisse AG, The Royal Bank of Scotland
Group
plc, Royal Bank of Scotland plc, and UBS AG; and
(2) the memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits submitted
in
support of Plaintiffs' motion to exclude certain opinions of
Dr. Dennis Carlton.
These filings include materials that have been designated as
Confidential or Highly Confidential pursuant to the Amended
Stipulation and Protective Order dated May 12, 2016.
Consistent with Your Honor's Sept. 27, 2024, Order, by Oct. 18,
2024, OTC Plaintiffs will file a public set of all materials
submitted in connection with these motions.
OTC Plaintiffs are delivering courtesy copies of the sealed filings
to Chambers in accordance with Section 2.H.2 of Your Honor's
Individual Practices and are also serving the sealed filings on
liaison counsel for Defendants via email.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vLuhJJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: BCarmody@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
James R. Martin, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
45 BroadwaySuite 920
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (646) 876-4400
BANK OF AMERICA: OTC Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, v. Bank of America Corporation et al. (RE: LIBOR-BASED
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
1:11-cv-05450-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the OTC Plaintiffs will move the
Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), for an
Order certifying the following class for OTC Plaintiffs' antitrust
claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act (Count I of the Corrected
Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint) against Credit Suisse AG,
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Royal Bank of Scotland plc,
and UBS AG:
"All persons or entities residing in the United States that
purchased, directly from a Panel Bank (or a Panel Bank's
subsidiaries or affiliates), a LIBOR-Based Instrument that paid
interest indexed to a U.S. dollar LIBOR rate set any time
during
the period August 2007 through August 2009 (the "Class Period")
regardless of when the LIBOR-Based Instrument was purchased
(the
"OTC Class")."
Excluded from the OTC Class are Panel Banks and their
employees,
affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries and any judicial officers
and staff presiding over this action.
For purposes of this Class definition, "Panel Bank" means Bank of
America; BTMU; Barclays; Citibank; Credit Suisse; Deutsche Bank;
HBOS; HSBC; JPMorgan; Lloyds; Norinchukin; Rabobank; RBC; RBS;
SocGen; UBS; and WestLB (n/k/a Portigon).
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zp1yTa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
Hilary Scherrer, Esq.
Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
hscherrer@hausfeld.com
ngiddings@hausfeld.com
gsmith@hausfeld.com
- and -
William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
Seth Ard, Esq.
Geng Chen, Esq.
Daniel D. Duhaime, Esq.
Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
Drew D. Hansen, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
One Manhattan West, 50th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
sard@susmangodfrey.com
gchen@susmangodfrey.com
dduhaime@susmangodfrey.com
mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
dhansen@susmangodfrey.com
BANK OF THE WEST: Manzo Seeks Extension of Briefing Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO MANZO, an
individual, in his representative capacity on behalf of the State
of California and fellow Aggrieved Employees, v. BANK OF THE WEST,
a California state-chartered bank; BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A., a
national banking association; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:23-cv-05848-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for briefing on the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and continue the hearing
date on the motion by approximately 120 days as follows:
Event Current Date New Date
Last day for Plaintiff to file Nov. 20, 2024 March 20,
2025
motion for class certification
Last day for Defendant to file Dec. 18, 2024 April 17,
2025
opposition to motion for class
certification
Last day for Plaintiff to file Jan. 2, 2025 May 2,
2025
reply in support of motion for
class certification
Hearing on motion for class Feb. 25, 2025 June 24,
2025
certification at 2:00 p.m. at 2:00
p.m.
The parties have been diligent in their discovery efforts and seek
this continuance well before the deadline for Plaintiff to file his
motion for class certification.
Moreover, this is the first continuance of the Case Management and
Scheduling Order requested by the parties, and this request will
not impact any other pretrial dates or the trial date.
The scope of Plaintiff's putative class is currently defined as:
"All current or former employees of Defendants who worked in
California at any time beginning four years prior to the filing
of
this complaint through the date notice is mailed to the
Class."
The Plaintiff initially filed a civil action in state court
asserting a single claim for civil penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The Plaintiff later filed an
amended complaint asserting class wage and hour claims for
statutory damages on behalf of a putative class.
Bank of the West was an American financial institution
headquartered in San Francisco, California.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2qn86y at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (213) 514-5681
Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
at@haffnerlawyers.com
vh@haffnerlawyers.com
BAYPORT FUNDING: 222 Bay Sues Over Improper Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
222 BAY STREET REALTY LLC; and UZI SHVUT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. BAYPORT
FUNDING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 526823/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings
Cty., Oct. 2, 2024) alleges violation of the New York Property
Laws, and General Business Laws.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant is
engaged in unlawful and predatory practice to deliberately include
improper, fabricated and unwarranted fees and interest in response
to requests for payoff letters, and to delay issuing those letters
for weeks at a time, in order to force borrowers, such as the
Plaintiffs, into either accepting grossly inflated and improper
payoff statements or be held in default, liable for 24 percent
interest and face foreclosure.
Bayport Funding LLC is a boutique private equity lending firm. The
Company specializes in short-term, non-traditional real estate
loans to fund the acquisition of residential/commercial real estate
investments. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aaron J. Solomon, Esq.
OVED & OVED LLP
401 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 226-2700
BESTWAY USA: Faces Harper Suit Over Defective Spa Pumps
-------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE HARPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BESTWAY USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-05193 (E.D. Pa., September 27, 2024), arises from
Defendant's alleged breach of its duties and warranties in
connection with its manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling
and warranting of its defective AirJet and HydroJet Spa Pumps.
According to the complaint, the spa pumps have a dangerous defect
that allows the spa pump to overheat causing the plastic housing to
ignite. On September 12, 2024, Bestway recalled nearly 866,000 of
these pumps. Plaintiff has never been informed of any recalls or
defects related to her Spa Pump by anyone affiliated with Bestway
and has learned of the defects on social media. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, negligent design defect, fraud
by omission or fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment,
negligence, and for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Headquartered in Chandler, AZ, Bestway USA, Inc. manufactures and
sells above ground pools, above ground spas, sporting and leisure
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart J. Guber, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: stuart.guber@poulinwilley.com
paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
BINGHAMTON PRECAST: Shara Conditional Collective Cert. Bid OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOLLY SHARA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BINGHAMTON
PRECAST & SUPPLY CORP.; and JAY ABBEY, Case No.
3:23-cv-00135-LEK-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
collective certification.
The persons authorized to opt-in as collective action plaintiffs
include those falling within the following class:
"All female employees who worked for Binghamton Precast &
Supply
Corp., at any time between January 30, 2020, and the present."
The Cour further entered an Order that:
-- the statute of limitations will be tolled from the date of
the
filing of Plaintiff's motion, which was Feb.22, 2024, until
the
date of this Order; and
-- within seven days, the parties' counsel complete the meet and
confer process regarding the form of notice and disclosure to
potential collective members' contact information.
The Court rejects Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's assertions
are insufficient because she fails to allege the "job titles,
duties, responsibilities or compensation structures of the proposed
opt-in class members."
On Jan. 30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed this putative collective
action against the Defendants alleging violations of the Equal Pay
Act ("EPA"), Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Equal
Pay Act ("NYEPA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the New
York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL").
Binghamton specializes in manufacturing of precast concrete
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Un3dVJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Sackowitz, Esq.
Kenneth J. Katz, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
The Defendants are represented by:
Angelo Catalano, Esq.
COUGHLIN, GERHART LAW FIRM
99 Corporate Drive
Binghamton, NY 13902
BIO-LAB INC: Fails to Handle Hazardous Chemicals, Reyes Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NAYELY REYES, ERNESTO ESPENOSA, LOFTON KING, DARRELL PHILLIP, and
JALISA PHILLIP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BIO-LAB, INC. and KIK CONSUMER PRODUCTS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04463-SEG (N.D. Ga., October 2,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, res
ipsa loquitor, negligence per se, nuisance, trespass, strict
liability for ultra-hazardous activity, and punitive damages.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged actions and omissions
that caused harms and damages to the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated residents of Conyers and Rockdale County, Georgia who
evacuated their homes, or were prevented from entering their homes,
or sheltered-in-place in response to the evacuation order.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their duties of
reasonable care by failing to properly store and handle hazardous
substances in a safe manner which triggered the evacuation order.
As a result of the Defendants' negligence and omissions, fire and
dangerous chemicals were released and the Plaintiffs and Class
members suffered damages, says the suit.
Bio-Lab, Inc. is the swimming pool and spa water care division of
KIK Consumer Products, Inc. based in Lawrenceville, Georgia.
KIK Consumer Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of detergent and
personal care products based in Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roger W. Orlando, Esq.
THE ORLANDO FIRM, PC
315 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 400
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (404) 373-1800
Facsimile: (404) 373-6999
Email: roger@orlandofirm.com
- and -
J. Michael Malone, Esq.
HENDREN REDWINE & MALONE, PLLC
4600 Marriott Drive, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 573-1423
Facsimile: (919) 420-0475
Email: mmalone@hendrenmalone.com
BLOOMINGTON INC: Fiorito Seeks Relief for Civil Rights Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fiorito, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Intelligent Office Bloomington Inc., Case No.
0:24-cv-03815-JMB-TNL (D. Minn., Oct. 3, 2024) is a class action
complaint seeking damages, class certification, and injunctive
relief for civil rights violations.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class under
Fed.R.Civ.P.23(a) 23(b)(2):
"All persons who have been denied policies and whose Civil
Rights have been violated as a result and all persons who the
Defendant has obtained background checks on without their
permission or knowledge during the statutory period."
Plaintiff Fiorito's claims are typical of the class members. They
all have a prior conviction; they all were unaware that the
Defendant would covertly obtain background checks on them.
Bloomington provides business solutions including receptionist
services, live phone answering, and scheduling services.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-03806
(D. Minn., Oct. 3, 2024) contends that the Defendant's website,
www.mybobs.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who
are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general
non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and
auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations as well as the
Minnesota Human Rights Act.
As a consequence of the Plaintiff's experience visiting the
Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an
investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the
Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny
screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important
Website content -- content the Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users, the suit says.
The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence
of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and
discriminated against by the Defendant's failure to provide its
online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible
with screen reader technology.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online
store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual
disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section
363A.29, subd. 4 (2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant
to Minn. Stat. section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat.
section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023).
Ms. Dalton is and has been a resident of Minnesota.
The Defendant offers furniture and accessories for sale including
couches, sofas, loveseats, mattresses, desks, chairs, entertainment
centers, and more.[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
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
BRICKHOUSE ATHLETICS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Calcano Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. BRICKHOUSE ATHLETICS LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-07518 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website, https://sweat440.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Sept. 20, 2024, in an attempt to book a Free Class from the
Defendant at Defendant's gym located at 600 6th Ave., New York, NY,
which is located a very short distance from the Plaintiff's
residence, and to view the information on the Website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the
Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
person, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation,
the suit adds.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Calcano is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Brickhouse provides group fitness class & HIIT workouts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
BRIDGE IT INC: Radomski Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Richard Radomski, Kendall Kelly, and Dennis
Coffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BRIDGE IT, INC., Case No. GD-24-007471 was removed from
the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on Sept. 5, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-01262-WSS.
On August 9, 2024, Brigit received a copy of the Complaint, which
contains claims alleged under the federal Truth-In-Lending Act, and
the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY | REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206.442.9106
Fax: 206.441.9711
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Dean Falavolito, Esq.
O'HAGAN MEYER
102 Broadway Street, Suite 200
Carnegie, PA 15106
Phone: (412) 790-3020
Facsimile: (412) 790-3025
Email: dfalavolito@ohaganmeyer.com
- and -
Charles K. Seyfarth, Esq.
Elizabeth Scott Turner, Esq.
O'HAGAN MEYER
411 East Franklin Street, Suite 500
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 403-7137
Facsimile: (804) 237-0250
Email: cseyfarth@ohaganmeyer.com
eturner@ohaganmeyer.com
BUMBLE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 25
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of securities of Bumble Inc. (NASDAQ: BMBL) between
November 7, 2023 and August 7, 2024, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important November 25, 2024 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Bumble securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Bumble class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3076 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than November 25, 2024. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, during the Class
Period, defendants created the false impression that they possessed
reliable information pertaining to Bumble's projected revenue
outlook and anticipated growth on the back of its
tiered-subscription options and subsequent app relaunch, while also
downplaying the potential disruption to Bumble's brand and
reputation caused by the imminent change in leadership. In truth,
Bumble's Premium Plus subscription plan did not have a clear market
fit and would very quickly need to be revamped. Bumble's
tiered-subscription options were ill equipped to provide the
claimed revenue per user benefit to Bumble's faltering market
share, particularly regarding user growth and monetization.
Defendants misled investors by providing the public with materially
flawed statements of confidence and growth projections which did
not account for these variables. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Bumble class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3076 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
BUZZBALLZ LLC: Faces Bullock Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BULLOCK, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. BUZZBALLZ, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-07545 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2024) contends that the Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website,
www.buzzballz.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services BuzzBallz provides to their non-disabled customers through
its website, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on
buzzballz.com, most recently on Sept. 8, 2024; Sept. 16, 2024; and
Sept. 19, 2024, but was unable to do so independently because of
the many access barriers on the Defendant's website. Amongst other
access barriers experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to make an
online purchase of the Choco Chiller and the Watermelon Smash
Cocktail, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Dos
Hombres policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Mr. Bullock is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Buzzballz offers canned cocktails and related product.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com
CARECENTRIX INC: Conditional Collective Certification Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NADEYAH JONES,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
CARECENTRIX, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01071-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Victor Bolden entered an order granting in part and denying
in part the motion for conditional collective certification.
Consistent with the Parties' Joint Stipulation, a narrower
collective of individuals will be conditionally certified than
originally sought in the motion for conditional collective
certification.
The Plaintiff's bonus-pay claim of Count I, and all claims from
Count II and Count III are dismissed with prejudice.
Dismissal of Claims Based on Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of
claims under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the bonus-pay claim in Count I and all Count II and
Count
III claims are dismissed with prejudice. The off-the-clock work
claim of Count I remains operative.
The conditional certification of this case as a collective action,
in accordance with 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), with respect to the
Plaintiff's claim from Count I involving pre- and post-shift,
off-the-clock work.
The collective is defined as and composed of:
"All current and former Patient Advocates who were employed by
CareCentrix at any time during the past three years."
On Aug. 10, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, against the Defendant
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
("Count I"), breach of contract ("Count II"), and unjust enrichment
("Count III").
CareCentrix provides home health care services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=03DSLs at no extra
charge.[CC]
CBE COMPANIES: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Schlicher Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SCHLICHER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CBE COMPANIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-01035 (N.D. Iowa, October 2, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a customer service
representative and later a fraud team leader from March 2022 to
March 2024.
CBE Companies, Inc. is an accounts receivable management services
and contact center solutions based in Iowa. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard Bates, Esq.
NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, P.L.C.
3900 Ingersoll Ave., Suite 201
Des Moines, IA 50312
Telephone: (515) 883-2000
Facsimile: (515) 883-2000
Email: lbates@newkirklaw.com
- and -
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
CBIZ BENEFITS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Giddings Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD GIDDINGS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01722 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 3, 2024) sues the Defendant
for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part
of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class
Members' names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures
to ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members 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, the suit
contends.
On Aug. 28, 2024, the Defendant began sending the Plaintiff and
other victims of the Data Breach an untitled letter. The Plaintiff
and Class Members have allegedly suffered injury as a result of the
Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of
privacy; (ii) theft of their PII; (iii) lost or diminished value of
PII; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with
attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach;
(v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) actual misuse of the
compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts,
and/or emails; (vii) Plaintiff's PII being disseminated on the dark
web, according to Experian; and (viii) the continued and certainly
increased risk to their PII.
Additionally, the Data Breach has caused the Plaintiff to suffer
fear, anxiety, and stress, which has been compounded by the fact
that the Defendant has still not fully informed him of key details
about the Data Breach's occurrence.
Plaintiff Giddings is a former employee at Sanofi, which contracted
with the Defendant for services.
CBIZ provides "financial and benefits and insurance services to
organizations of all sizes, as well as individual clients."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
CBIZ INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Marcum LLP
----------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- CBIZ, Inc. (NYSE:CBZ), relating to its proposed merger with
Marcum, LLP. Under the terms of the agreement, it is anticipated
that approximately half of the transaction consideration will be
paid in cash, and the remainder in shares of CBIZ stock.
ACT QUICKLY. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for October 23,
2024.
Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cbiz-inc/. It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.
-- GSE Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:GVP), relating to its proposed
merger with Pelican Energy Partners. Under the terms of the
agreement, GSE Systems shareholders will receive $4.10 in cash per
share they own.
ACT SOON. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for October 25, 2024.
Click here for more
informationhttps://monteverdelaw.com/case/gse-systems-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Affinity Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq:AFBI), relating to its
proposed merger with Atlanta Postal Credit Union ("APCU"). Under
the terms of the agreement, APCU will pay Affinity an aggregate
amount estimated to provide Affinity with sufficient cash to pay
Affinity shareholders approximately $22.40 - $22.60 per share.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 4, 2024.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/affinity-bancshares-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
CE SOLUTIONS: Butskhrikidze et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
AKAKI BUTSKHRIKIDZE, ALEKSANDRE CHINCHALADZE, SERGO GELASHVILI,
GIORGI GIGATADZE, GOGA GIGAURI, GIORGI LIPARTIA, GIORGI NINIDZE,
TAMAZ SABAURI, BESIK TSIKHELISHVILI, AND KHADURI ZVAIDI
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, NYC 2WAY INTERNATIONAL LTD,
UNIQUE TRANS CORP., A&M TRANSPORT TRANSPORT INC, BEKRUZJON INC.,
BEKRUZJON CORP, EDUARD SLININ, individually, DORA SLININ,
individually, JEANNINE NAPOLEONE-COLBERT, individually, NABIH
KOUBAISSY, individually, MAHMOUD BEHEIRY, individually and MADINA
SHUKUROVA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-06855
(S.D.N.Y., September 27, 2024) seeks damages and equitable relief
for the alleged unjust enrichment and for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Allegedly, the Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs as independent
contractors despite exercising complete control over the terms and
condition of Plaintiffs' employment, attempting to unlawfully avoid
paying them overtime compensation, minimum wages, and to circumvent
the other NYLL's and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations'
statutory and regulatory requirements.
CE Solutions Group, LLC is a New York limited liability company
engaged in the business of providing services assisting non-party
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., by staffing its
construction worksites. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Geoffrey Kalender, Esq.
Clifford Tucker, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
31-19 Newtown Ave,
Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-1627
Facsimile: (718) 559-6517
E-mail: gkalender@saccofillas.com
CTucker@SaccoFillas.com
CENTURY MEDICAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Raheel Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
AISHA RAHEEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Century Medical and Dental Center, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-07033 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Century
Medical and Dental Center provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://www.centurymedicaldental.com, the Plaintiff
contends.
On July 29, 2024, the Plaintiff attempted to book an appointment
for general dentistry services, specifically general dental
consultation and teeth whitening, on the Defendant's website,
Centurymedicaldental.com. However, while trying to navigate the
website and schedule her appointment, she encountered multiple
accessibility barriers. These included interactive elements that
were not keyboard-focusable, unexpected content changes without
prior warning, and the lack of alt-text on graphics, the suit
says.
Amongst other access barriers experienced, the Plaintiff was unable
to learn more information about medical center locations and hours
of operation, compare prices and benefits and learn more
information about the goods and services in its physical location,
the suit adds.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Century Medical and Dental Center's policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Century Medical provides medical and dental services with
specialties including cardiology, dermatology, endocrinology,
gastroenterology, gynecology, neurology, dentistry, ophthalmology,
orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, and other.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Ellerbee Alleges Unsecured Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLA ELLERBEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY (d/b/a
ATRIUM HEALTH), Case No. 3:24-cv-00890 (W.D.N.C., Oct. 3, 2024)
sues the Defendant for its failures to properly secure, safeguard,
encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information and
protected health information that it had acquired and stored for
its business purposes.
According to the complaint, the compromised information included
"individual's first and/or last name; middle initial; street
address, email address and/or phone number(s); Social Security
number; date of birth; medical record number; certain government or
employer identifiers; driver's license or state-issued
identification number; bank or financial account numbers or
information; treatment/diagnosis, provider name, prescription,
health insurance or treatment cost information; patient
identification number; health insurance account or policy
number(s); incidental health references; billing identification
numbers; access credentials; and/or digital signatures," the suit
says.
According to a notice Atrium sent to the Department of Health and
Human Services Office for Civil Rights on Sept. 13, 2024, as of
that date the breach had affected 32,120 individuals. According to
a notice on its website, the Defendant confirmed that a "security
incident" occurred on its network on April 29, 2024.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for
years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to
guard against identity theft, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief
including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future
annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring
services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief.
Plaintiff Ellerbee is and was an individual citizen of the State of
Georgia, residing in the city of Musella, and was a patient of
Atrium.
Atrium is an organization that provides medical treatment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq.
RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300
Wilmington, NC 28403
Telephone: (910) 772-9960
Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
ras@rhinelawfirm.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Harper Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL
SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, and LUIS VAZQUEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved
employees, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on Dec. 9, 2024, for an order against the Defendant under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
(1) Certifying two overarching classes, along with claim-specific
subclasses or issue classes, as the Court deems appropriate
or
necessary, each defined as follows or as modified by the
Court:
Commission Wage Statements Class:
"All California-based commission-eligible employees who
received
at least one wage statement with a monthly or quarterly
commission or commission allowance payment between Sept. 14,
2017 and the date of the order."
Arbitration Subclass:
"All Commission Wage Statements Class members who Charter
contends are bound by a JAMS Arbitration Agreement and/or a
Solution Channel Mutual Arbitration Agreement."
Training Weeks Class:
All California-based Direct Sales Employees who had at least
one
week of new hire training between Nov. 19, 2014 and the date
of
the order."
Overtime Subclass:
"All Training Weeks Class members who worked over 8 hours in
a
day or 40 hours in a week during their training weeks."
Meal Period Subclass.
"All Training Weeks Class members who worked over 5 hours at
least one day during their training weeks and were not
provided
a designated off-duty meal period of at least 30 minutes.”
Rest Break Subclass.
"All Training Weeks Class members who worked over 3.5 hours
at
least one day during their training weeks and were not
provided
a designated off-duty rest break of at least 10 minutes, or
who
worked over 6 hours at least one day during their training
weeks
and were not provided two designated off-duty rest breaks of
at
least 10 minutes each."
Training Weeks Wage Statements Subclass:
"All Training Weeks Class members who received at least one
wage
statement on or after Sept. 14, 2017 that covers a training
week."
Termination Subclass:
"All Training Weeks Class members whose employment terminated
on
or after Nov. 19, 2015."
UCL Subclass:
"All Training Weeks Class members whose training weeks
occurred
between Nov. 19, 2014 and Nov. 18, 2015.
Arbitration Subclass:
“All Training Weeks Class members who Charter contends are
bound
by a JAMS Arbitration Agreement and/or a Solution Channel
Mutual
Arbitration Agreement.
(2) Appointing Lionel Harper and Daniel Sinclair as a class
representatives.
(3) Appointing Soderstrom Law PC as class counsel.
(4) Directing Charter to give written notice of certification via
U.S. mail, email, and website posting to all class members
within 28 days of the date of the order.
Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company with services branded as Spectrum.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=il2lWg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq.
SODERSTROM LAW PC
1 Park Plaza, Suite 600
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 667-4700
Facsimile: (949) 424-8091
E-mail: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Denial of Harper Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL
SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, and LUIS VAZQUEZ individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved
employees, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on Nov. 12, 2024,
will move the Court for an Order denying class certification of the
Plaintiffs' claims in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Charter employs thousands of outside salespeople whose job it is to
solicit sales door-to-door in an effort to sell Charter's products
and services to the millions of residents and business in its
footprint. Due to the complexity of the products and services that
Charter offers, it provides training all outside salespeople at the
time of hire so that they can familiarize themselves with
Charter’s products, services, and operations.
In this case, the Plaintiffs Lionel Harper and Daniel
Sinclair—the only two plaintiffs remaining in this case—are
pursuing California Labor Code claims on behalf of a group of
current and former salespeople employed by Charter.
The Plaintiffs allege they and other current and former sales
employees were misclassified as exempt outside salespeople.
Plaintiffs further claim Charter issued inaccurate commission wage
statements to its commission-eligible employees.
No matter how Plaintiffs purport to define their
"misclassification" and "commission wage statement" classes, this
Court cannot certify any such classes under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, the Defendant contends.
Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company
with services branded as Spectrum.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NRoJpY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph W. Ozmer II, Esq.
J. Scott Carr, Esq.
Nathan D. Chapman, Esq.
KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2225
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 493-3980
Facsimile: (404) 400-7333
E-mail: jozmer@kcozlaw.com
scarr@kcozlaw.com
nchapman@kcozlaw.com
CHEMTOOL INC: Members Encounter Missing Claims Problem
------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Soto, writing for WREX.com reports that one week after a
judge approved a substantial $94.5 million settlement for residents
affected by the devastating chemical fire at the Chemtool plant in
Rockton in 2021, concerns are surfacing among members.
As of last Friday, October 4, approximately 2,800 claims had been
submitted for the settlement, but many residents are reporting
issues with their applications.
Plaintiff Class Attorney Ed Manske, representing class members of
the lawsuit, revealed that he has spoken with nearly 100 residents
in the past week who are encountering problems with their claims.
One resident, Doug Clayburg, who lives within a three-mile radius
of the Chemtool plant, shared his experience. After filing his
claim online on June 18, he called to confirm its processing, only
to discover that there was no record of his submission.
"This is supposed to be the class action suit that's going to help
us," Clayburg expressed. "But it just seems like such a wide scope,
and my frustration was that nobody was saying anything about it."
Clayburg's experience is not isolated as many others are facing
similar challenges, creating a sense of uncertainty in the
community.
Attoney Ed Manske emphasized his commitment to ensuring that all
class members are recognized, saying, "Our goal, obviously, is to
make sure all of our class members who follow the procedures are
recognized, and that hasn't changed."
He tells 13 WREX he is actively collaborating with class
administrators to re-verify claims and correct issues for those
submitted before the September 12 deadline.
If you're concerned that your claim may have been lost, Manske
advises reaching out directly to the class administrators to
confirm receipt of your claim form. If you continue to have
difficulties, you are encouraged to contact Attorney Ed Manske for
further assistance. [GN]
CITGO PETROLEUM: $10-Mil. ERISA Suit Settlement Granted Prelim OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 4, 2024, a federal judge granted preliminary approval of
a proposed class action settlement that provides $10 million in
increased pension benefits to more than 1,700 participants and
beneficiaries in two of Citgo Petroleum Corporation's pension
plans. The settlement comes shortly after the court gave plaintiffs
two back-to-back wins -- a class certification ruling on May 16 and
a ruling that largely dismissed Citgo's motion for summary judgment
on May 6.
The lawsuit against Citgo alleged that the Houston-based gas and
energy giant violated the federal Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") by failing to properly calculate joint and
survivor annuity ("joint pensions") benefits for married retirees
and imposing a "marriage penalty" that reduced these joint pensions
below the value of pensions paid to retirees who are single.
Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that Citgo's pension plans
utilized outdated mortality tables (from the 1970s) to determine
the value of the joint pensions, resulting in married retirees
systematically receiving less than their single counterparts in
violation of ERISA. The lawsuit sought to fix the underpayments,
and to reform the Citgo plans to fully comply with ERISA.
"We are delighted by the settlement, which provides a significant
victory for married retirees who are entitled to receive the full
value of their hard-earned pensions," said Michelle C. Yau, chair
of Cohen Milstein's Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. "As our
claims have asserted, federal law does not allow corporations to
shortchange married retirees and their spouses. The proposed
settlement is a major victory in this legal battle."
In May, the court rejected Citgo's summary judgment arguments that
the entire lawsuit should be dismissed based on the statute of
limitations, finding that all three plaintiffs could proceed with
their actuarial equivalence claims and that two of the three
plaintiffs could proceed with their breach of fiduciary duty claim.
Further, the court was not persuaded by Citgo's argument that the
plaintiffs should have exhausted administrative remedies rather
than filing suit in federal court.
The case, Urlaub et al v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation et al., was
filed on August 3, 2021 in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of Illinois. It was brought on behalf retirees in
the Citgo Petroleum Corporation Salaried Employees Pension Plan and
the Citgo Petroleum Corporation Hourly Employees Pension Plan who
are receiving a joint and survivor annuity.
This is one of six such "marriage penalty" ERSIA class actions
Cohen Milstein has filed against some of the largest companies in
the United States, including AT&T, IBM, Intel, Luxottica, and
Southern Company.
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs' law
firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the
causes of real people -- workers, consumers, small business owners,
investors, and whistleblowers -- working to deliver corporate
reforms and fair markets for the common good. For more information
visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com
CITIZENS BANK: Salter Suit Removed to M.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Leigh Salter, on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated consumers v. Citizens Bank, N.A., Case No.
04-cv-24-900141.00 was removed from the Circuit Court of Autauga
County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Alabama on Sept. 6, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00574-ECM-KFP to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Citizens Bank -- https://www.citizensbank.com/homepage.aspx --
provides mobile banking services to residents of Abilene and Knox
City and the surrounding.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Washington Stewart, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF KATRINA WASHINGTON, LLC
P O Box 11881
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 578-8433
Fax: (205) 449-7036
Email: katrina@washingtonstewart.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Johnny L. Nelms, Jr., Esq.
RUBIN LUBLIN, LLC
3145 Avalon Ridge Place, Ste. 100
Peachtree Corners, GA 30071
Phone: (770) 246-3300
Fax: (470) 508-9203
Email: jnelms@rlselaw.com
COLORADO: Inmates Seek Class Cert. in Forced Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Public Radio coverage by Allison Sherry, July 16, 2024,
Incarcerated men allege they were cut off from loved ones and lost
privileges in forced labor lawsuit.
Lawyers representing incarcerated people say the state's Department
of Corrections punished thousands of people for declining to
perform labor required by the state -- including punishments that
bordered on solitary confinement.
An ongoing and sweeping lawsuit against the state alleges
corrections officials engaged in slavery or involuntary servitude
in its prisons by retaliating against people who declined to
perform labor inside prisons.
In filings last week, two incarcerated people moved for
class-certification status in the lawsuit. Denver lawyer David
Maxted and the advocacy group Towards Justice are representing the
inmates, most of whom are still incarcerated.
In those filings, one incarcerated man, 29-year-old Casey Lowe,
said that he was confined to a cell 22 hours a day when he showed
up late a few times to a mandatory veggie prep shift at the Four
Mile Correctional Facility.
He was placed on restricted privileges, had little or no contact
with his family and had his canteen privileges -- that is, what he
could buy at the store -- restricted.
"It was horrible. This experience caused me to suffer pretty bad
anxiety and depression. I would get in my head a lot, I had trouble
sleeping. I suffered a lack of energy, and I found it very
difficult to remain positive," Lowe wrote in a court filing. "I
felt hopeless all the time. This was made even worse by the fact
that I could not contact my support network to help me cope with my
anxiety and depression because my phone was cut off and that I did
not even get the minimum recreation and library time I should have
been allowed."
Lowe also said the punishments resulted in him spending "more time
in prison and prevented me from getting to a halfway house."
Another man, 28-year-old Elias Vasquez who is incarcerated at the
Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility, said declining the coerced
jobs inside the prison always resulted in punishment.
When Vasquez said he didn't want to work in the kitchen, prison
officials put him on restricted privileges for 58 days. He couldn't
speak to family on the phone and couldn't buy enough things from
the canteen to maintain basic hygiene, he alleged in court
documents.
Lawyers say these policies violate Amendment A, which was approved
by Colorado voters in 2018 and bans the state from "engaging in
slavery or involuntary servitude" under any circumstances.
Valerie Collins, an attorney from Towards Justice, said the case
isn't about prohibiting all prison labor.
"All our clients are demanding is that the state stops forcing
people to work," she said, in a statement. "The state could remedy
these constitutional violations today if it wanted to."
A spokesperson for the state Department of Corrections did not have
a comment about the filings. [GN]
COMMUNITY CLINIC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aleuta Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARIE ALEUTA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY CLINIC OF MAUI, INC. d/b/a MALAMA
I KE OLA HEALTH CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00431-MWJS-WRP
(D. Hawaii, Oct. 2, 2024) Is a class action arising out of the
recent targeted cyberattack and data breach on May 4 and May 7,
2024 on the Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized
access to its members' sensitive personal data.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the
Data Breach, the Plaintiff and approximately 120,000 other
similarly situated individuals had their most sensitive personal
information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to
suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit
of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their
time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack.
The Plaintiff and Class Members now face an increased risk to their
identities due to Defendant's negligent actions, which resulted in
the exposure of the Private Information Defendant collected and
maintained, leaving it in the hands of data thieves.
Community Clinic of Maui, Inc. d/b/a Malama I Ke Ola Health Center
provides comprehensive primary care medical, dental, health and
prenatal services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert G. Klein, Esq.
Kurt W. Klein, Esq.
David A. Robyak, Esq.
James M. Yuda, Esq.
Jason W. Jutz, Esq.
Mallorie C. Aiwohi, Esq.
KLEIN LAW GROUP LLLC
Waterfront Plaza Suite 3-480
500 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813
Telephone: (808) 591-8822
Email: rgk@kleinlg.com
kwk@kleinlg.com
dar@kleinlg.com
jmy@kleinlg.com
jwj@kleinlg.com
mca@kleinlg.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Email: bbleichner@chesnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
COVENANT CARE: Sued Over Failure to Implement Cybersecurity
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karestin Thompson, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COVENANT CARE CALIFORNIA, LLC; and DOES 1-10,
Case No. 30-2024-01423179-CU-BT-CX (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 5,
2024), is brought arising from Defendant's negligent failure to
implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity procedures that
resulted in a data Breach of its systems on or around November 12,
2023 through November 14, 2023 in violation of the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"), the California
customer Records Act, the California Unfair Competition Law And for
invasion of privacy based on the California Constitution.
In connection with the medical and healthcare related services. The
Defendant collects stores and processes sensitive personal data and
personal health care information for thousands of individuals,
including, but not limited to, its employees, patients and
customers. In doing so, the Defendant retains sensitive
information, including but not limited to, bank account
information, healthcare related information, addresses and Social
Security numbers, among other things.
Despite knowing the prevalence of data breaches, the Defendant
failed to prioritize data security by adopting reasonable data
security measures to prevent and detect unauthorized access to its
highly sensitive systems and databases. The defendant passed the
resources to prevent a data breach, but neglected to adequately
invest data security despite the growing number of well publicized
breaches. The defendant failed to undertake adequate analysis and
testing of its own systems, training of its own personnel and other
data security measures to ensure vulnerabilities were avoided or
remedied and the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' data were
protected, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the state of California, whose
personal identifying information and personal health information
was part of the November 12, 2023 through November 14, 2023 data
breach.
Covenant Care California LLC is an elderly care corporation
organized and existed under the laws of the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (310) 335-2001
Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
Email: jason@wukolaw.com
dimitri@wukolaw.com
CVS HEALTH: Bandage Products Contains Toxic Chemicals, Bourne Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALISA BOURNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION and CVS PHARMACY,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-06899 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2024)
alleges that the Defendant's brand bandages (the "Bandages" or the
"Products") contains toxic Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Products are unfit
for their intended purpose because they contain Per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or known as the "forever
chemicals," which are dangerous to human health.
The Plaintiff and the other California Subclass Members suffered a
substantial injury by virtue of buying the Products that they would
not have purchased, or paying more than they otherwise would have
for the Products, absent Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent, and
unfair marketing, advertising, packaging, and omission about the
defective nature of the Products.
CVS Health Corporation provides health care and retail pharmacy
services. The Company offers prescription medications, beauty,
personal care, cosmetics, and health care products, as well as
pharmacy benefit management (PBM), disease management, and
administrative services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
D2C LLC: Florida Fed. Court Refuses to Certify Video Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin R. Donoho and Nathan K. Norimoto of
Duane Morris LLP in an article at Lexology report that on October
1, 2024, Judge Robert Scola of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida denied class certification in a case
involving website advertising technology ("adtech") in Martinez v.
D2C, LLC, 2024 WL 4367406 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2024). The ruling is
significant as it shows that plaintiffs who file class action
complaints alleging improper use of adtech cannot satisfy Rule 23's
numerosity requirement merely by showing the presence of adtech on
a website and numerous visitors to that website. The Court's
reasoning in denying class certification applies not only in adtech
cases raising claims brought under the Video Privacy Protection Act
("VPPA"), like this one, but also to other adtech cases raising a
wide variety of other statutory and common law legal theories.
Background
This case is one of the hundreds of class actions that plaintiffs
have filed nationwide alleging that Meta Pixel, Google Analytics,
and other similar software embedded in defendants' websites
secretly captured plaintiffs' web browsing data and sent it to
Meta, Google, and other online advertising agencies. This software,
often called website advertising technologies or "adtech" is a
common feature on millions of corporate, governmental, and other
websites in operation today.
In Martinez, the plaintiffs brought suit against D2C, LLC d/b/a
Univision NOW ("Univision"), an online video-streaming service. The
parties did not dispute, at least for the purposes of class
certification, that: (A) Univision installed the Meta Pixel on its
video-streaming website; (B) Univision was a "video tape service
provider" and the plaintiffs and other Univision subscribers were
"consumers" under the VPPA, thereby giving rise to liability under
that statute if the plaintiffs could show Univision transmitted
their personally identifiable information (PII) such as their
Facebook IDs along with the videos they accessed to Meta without
their consent; (C) none of the plaintiffs consented; and (D) 35,845
subscribers viewed at least one video on Univision's website.
The plaintiffs moved for class certification under Rule 23. The
plaintiffs maintained that that at least 17,000 subscribers,
including (or in addition to) them, had their PII disclosed to Meta
by Univision. The plaintiffs reached this number upon acknowledging
"at least two impediments to a subscriber's viewing information's
being transmitted to Meta: (1) not having a Facebook account; and
(2) using a browser that, by default, blocks the Pixel." Thus, the
plaintiffs pointed to "statistics regarding the percentage of
people in the United States who have Facebook accounts (68%) and
the testimony of their expert . . . regarding the percentage of the
population who use a web browser that would not block the Pixel
transmission (70%), to conclude, using 'basic math,' that the class
would be comprised of 'at least approximately 17,000 individuals.'"
In contrast, Univision maintained that the plaintiffs failed to
carry their burden of showing that even a single subscriber had
their PII disclosed, including the three named plaintiffs.
The Court's Decision
The Court agreed with Univision and held that the plaintiffs did
not carry their burden of showing numerosity.
First, the Court held that the plaintiffs' reliance on statistics
regarding percentage of people who have Facebook accounts was
unhelpful, because "being logged in to Facebook" -- not just having
an account -- "is a prerequisite to the Pixel disclosing
information." Moreover, "being simultaneously logged in to Facebook
is still not enough to necessarily prompt a Pixel transmission: a
subscriber must also have accessed the prerecorded video on
Univision's website through the same web browser and device through
which the subscriber (and not another user) was logged into
Facebook."
Second, the Court held that the plaintiffs' reliance on their
proffer that 70% of people use Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge,
which allow Pixel transmission "under default configurations,"
failed to account for all of the following "actions a user can take
that would also block any Pixel transmission to Meta: enabling a
browser's third-party cookie blockers; setting a browser's cache to
'self-destruct'; clearing cookies upon the end of a browser
session; and deploying add-on software that blocks third-party
cookies."
In short, the Court reasoned that the plaintiffs did not establish
"the means to make a supported factual finding, that the class to
be certified meets the numerosity requirement." Moreover, the Court
found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that "any" PII had
been disclosed, including their own. In reply, the plaintiffs
attempted to introduce evidence supplied by Meta that one of the
plaintiffs' PII had been transmitted to Meta. The court refused to
consider this new information, supplied for the first time on
reply, and further found that even if it were to consider the new
evidence, "this only gets the Plaintiffs to one 'class member.'"
Finding the plaintiffs' failure to satisfy the numerosity
requirement dispositive, the Court declined to evaluate the other
Rule 23 factors.
Implications For Companies
This case is a win for defendants of adtech class actions. In such
cases, the Martinez decision can be cited as useful precedent for
showing that the numerosity requirement is not met where plaintiffs
put forth only speculative evidence as to whether the adtech
disclosed plaintiffs' and alleged class members' PII to third
parties. The Court's reasoning in Martinez applies not only in VPPA
cases but also other adtech cases alleging claims for invasion of
privacy, under state and federal wiretap acts, and more. All these
legal theories have adtech's transmission of the PII to third
parties as a necessary element. In sum, to establish numerosity,
plaintiffs must demonstrate, at a minimum, that class members were
logged into their own adtech accounts at the time they visited the
defendants' website, using the same device and browser for the
adtech and the visit, using a browser that did not block the
transmission by default, and not deploying any number of browser
settings and add-on software that would have blocked the
transmission. [GN]
DATTO INC: Dinnerman Appeals False Ad Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA DAVID DINNERMAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Joshua David Dinnerman, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Datto, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
8:23-cv-02301-JLS-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act by promoting false advertising upon
purchasing OPEN MESH devices and did not provide the features that
were promised unless consumers agreed to pay a monthly maintenance
fee for a cloud license to continue receiving the promised benefits
and features.
On June 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on June 25, 2024.
On Aug. 9, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice through an Order entered by Judge Josephine
L. Staton.
On Aug. 23, 2024, judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants
and against the Plaintiffs.
The appellate case is captioned Dinnerman, et al. v. Datto, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 24-5830, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 25, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 30,
2024;
-- Appellants' Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 4, 2024;
and
-- Appellees' Appeal Answering Brief is due on December 4, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSHUA DAVID DINNERMAN, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Gary Richard Carlin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GARY CARLIN, APC
301 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550
Long Beach, CA 90802
Defendants-Appellees DATTO, INC., et al. are represented by:
Sascha Von Mende Henry, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
333 S. Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
DAVID'S BRIDAL: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Martinez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mariah Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. David's Bridal LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-05335 (E.D. Pa.,
Oct. 4, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure
and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it
collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices,
including the Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and Social
Security numbers (collectively defined as "PII").
On Sept. 13, 2024, the Defendant began sending the Plaintiff and
other victims of the Data Breach a Notice of Data Incident letter
(the "Notice Letter").
In breaching its duties to properly safeguard employees' PII and
give employees timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's
occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or
recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, the suit
asserts.
The Data Breach has caused the Plaintiff to suffer fear, anxiety,
and stress, which has been compounded by the fact that the
Defendant has still not fully informed her of key details about the
Data Breach's occurrence. The Plaintiff and Class Members have
suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries
include: invasion of privacy; theft of their PII; lost or
diminished value of PII; lost time and opportunity costs associated
with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data
Breach; loss of benefit of the bargain; lost opportunity costs
associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of
the Data Breach; nominal damages; and the continued and certainly
increased risk to their PII, added the suit.
Plaintiff Martinez is a former employee at David's Bridal who left
Defendant in 2016. As a condition of her employment at David's
Bridal, she was required to supply the Defendant with her PII,
including her name and Social Security number.
David's Bridal operates a retail chain of stores that sells bridal
gowns, prom dresses, and other formal wear products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut St., Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215)592-1500
Facsimile: (215)592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 879-8200
Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com
DAVIS AND DAVIS: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Meier Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARK MEIER, BRUCE MEIER, DANIEL FESTA, and RACHELANNE FLEMING, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. LARRY E. DAVIS, an individual; LARRY DAVIS AND CHARLOTTE DAVIS,
TRUSTEES OF THE LARRY AND CHARLOTTE DAVIS LIVING TRUST; DAVID
LINCOLN, an individual; BRENT A. DAVIS, an individual; BRENT A.
DAVIS, TRUSTEE OF THE BRENT A. DAVIS 2012 IRREVOCABLE TRUST; DAVIS
AND DAVIS DISTRIBUTORS, a California corporation; DAVIS EQUIPMENT,
INC., a California corporation; DAVIS AND DAVIS DISTRIBUTORS NO.
2., INC., a California corporation; VRAD PRODUCTS, INC.; AIR-O-FAN
PRODUCTS CORP., an entity of unknown origin; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-at-00784 (E.D. Cal., October
3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets,
breach of the duty of honest services, direct class claim for
breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting, principal-agent
liability, alter ego-veil-piercing liability, conversion, and civil
conspiracy.
The Plaintiffs bring this shareholder class and derivative action
against the Defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and
against related entities for aiding and abetting a scheme in which
the Defendants diverted millions of dollars in profits to related
entities which are owned and operated by the same officers and
directors of Defendant Air-O-Fan Products Corp. According to the
complaint, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated shareholders are
wrongfully deprived of the economic benefits of their equity stake
in Air-O-Fan Products as a result of the Defendants' unlawful
conduct.
Davis and Davis Distributors is an equipment supplier doing
business in California.
Davis Equipment, Inc. is an equipment supplier doing business in
California.
Davis and Davis Distributors No. 2., Inc. is an equipment supplier
doing business in California.
VRAD Products, Inc. is a company that specializes in the
development of virtual reality (VR) simulators and software
services, doing business in California.
Air-O-Fan Products Corp. is an agricultural sprayer manufacturer
based in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric B. Strongin, Esq. (SBN 216561)
STRONGIN, LLP
999 Corporate Drive, Suite 220
Ladera Ranch, CA 92694
Telephone: (949) 529-2250
Facsimile: (949) 386-7253
Email: results@stronginlaw.com
- and -
Ed Westbrook, Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
27345 Ortega Hwy., Suite 200
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Telephone: (949) 496-8101
Facsimile: (949) 496-0278
Email: Ed.westbrook@yahoo.com
- and -
Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq.
W EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 674-4922
Email: Jacob@wemploymentlaw.com
DEACONESS ILLINOIS: Discloses Personal Info Meta, Doe Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DEACONESS ILLINOIS UNION COUNTY HOSPITAL, INC. D/B/A
DEACONESS ILLINOIS UNION COUNTY D/B/A UNION COUNTY HOSPITAL, Case
No. 3:24-cv-02284-NJR (S.D. Ill., Oct. 4, 2024) seeks to address
Defendant's outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of
disclosing the confidential personally identifying information
and/or Protected Health Information of the Plaintiff and the
proposed Class Members to third parties, including Meta Platforms,
Inc. d/b/a Meta, Google, LLC, DoubleClick Ads, Microsoft Corp., and
potentially others.
The Defendant allegedly embedded pixels from Facebook, Google,
DoubleClick Ads, Microsoft, and possibly others, into its Website
and Online Platforms, surreptitiously forcing the Plaintiff and
Class Members to transmit intimate details about their medical
treatment to third parties without their consent.
Among the trackers Defendant embedded into its Website is the Meta
Pixel. By default, the Meta Pixel tracks information about a
website user's device and the URLs and domains they visit. When
configured to do so, the Meta Pixel can track much more, including
a visitor's search terms, button clicks, and form submissions.
Additionally, the Meta Pixel can link a visitor's website
interactions with an individual's unique and persistent Facebook
ID, allowing a user's health information to be linked with their
Facebook profile. Neither the Plaintiff nor any Class Member signed
a written authorization permitting the Defendant to send their
Private Information to Facebook or other third parties uninvolved
in their treatment, the suit says.
Plaintiff Doe is a citizen of the State of Illinois, where she
intends to remain. She is a patient of the Defendant and a victim
of its unauthorized Disclosure of Private Information.
The Defendant is a hospital in Anna, Illinois, which UCH has
described as "a 25-bed facility with complete inpatient and
outpatient care including emergency, medical and surgical
services."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Mallory K. Schiller, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
mschiller@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC
980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
DEREK SCHUMM: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Goldman
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Goldman v. Schumm, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01308-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E.
Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SWwEpP at no extra
charge.[CC]
DOS HOMBRES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Bullock Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BULLOCK, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. DOS HOMBRES, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-07537 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website,
www.doshombres.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Dos Hombres provides to their
non-disabled customers through its website. The Plaintiff has made
numerous attempts to complete a purchase on doshombres.com, most
recently on Aug. 30, 2024; Sept. 5, 2024; and Sept. 19, 2024, but
was unable to do so independently because of the many access
barriers on Defendant's website. Amongst other access barriers
experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to make an online purchase of
the Tobala Mezcal, the Espadin Mezcal, and the Dos Hombres Tan
Sherpa Jacket, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Dos
Hombres policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Dos Hombres is a mezcal company co-founded in 2019 by American
actors Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com
EAST LOS ANGELES: Diaz Seeks Nursing Assistants' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUCERO DIAZ, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. EAST LOS ANGELES HEALTHCARE, LLC, a California limited
liability company, PACS GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV26742 (Cal. Super., Oct. 3,
2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay aggrieved employees
for all hours worked as a result of rounding practices.
The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant rounds Plaintiff's and
aggrieved employees' timecards in a manner that favors Defendant,
despite readily available technology that will record clock in and
out time to the exact minute. The Defendant has had a consistent
policy and/or practice of: failing to pay for all hours worked,
including overtime hours worked, failure to provide timely,
uninterrupted rest breaks, failure to provide timely, uninterrupted
meal breaks, failure to properly calculate and pay sick leave wages
– failure to properly accrue, failure to reimburse for business
expenses, failing to pay wages due upon termination, and failing
to provide accurate itemized wage statements and violation of
record keeping requirements, the Plaintiff says.
The Defendant is therefore liable for civil penalties under the
Cal. Labor Code, including the Private Attorney General Act, Labor
Code section2698 et seq, the suit says.
The Plaintiff Diaz is a resident of the State of California and
worked for the Defendant as a Certified Nursing Assistant from July
of 2023 until February of 2024.
East Los Angeles is a nursing home facility.[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
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com
hilary@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, Esq.
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
E-mail: sahagii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH: Barpar Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Barpar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH INCORPORATED, JEFFREY N. SIMMONS,
and TODD S. YOUNG, Case No. 1:24-cv-02912-BAH (D. Md., Oct. 7,
2024), is brought seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain
of its top officials.
The Company is developing, inter alia, Zenrelia, a "safe, highly
effective, and convenient" once-daily oral Janus kinase ("JAK")
inhibitor for canine dermatology, and Credelio Quattro, a broad
spectrum parasiticide product for dogs. In November 2023, Elanco
set a timeline for the U.S. approval of both Zenrelia and Credelio
Quattro in the first half of 2024. Then, in May 2024, Elanco set a
timeline for the U.S. approval and commercial launch of Zenrelia in
third quarter of 2024, as well as the U.S. approval of Credelio
Quattro in the third quarter of 2024 with a commercial launch set
for the fourth quarter of 2024.
The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: Zenrelia was less safe than the
Company had led investors to believe; Elanco was unlikely to meet
its own previously issued timeline for the U.S. approval and
commercial launch of both Zenrelia and Credelio Quattro;
accordingly, the Company's business and/or financial prospects were
overstated; and as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On June 27, 2024, the Company issued a press release providing an
"innovation update" on Zenrelia and Credelio Quattro and their U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval timelines. On this
news, Elanco's stock price fell $3.69 per share, or 20.53%, to
close at $14.28 per share on June 27, 2024.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Elanco securities at artificially inflated
prices.
Elanco is an animal health company that develops, manufactures, and
markets products for pets and farm animals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
S. Douglas Bunch
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 500, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
dbunch@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
ENDAVA PLC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set October 25
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Endava plc ("Endava" or the
"Company") (NYSE: DAVA) and reminds investors of the October 25,
2024 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action that has been filed against the Company.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with
offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm
has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since
its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com.
As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its
executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or
misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) demand for
the Company's services was declining; (2) the Company's clients
delayed or canceled projects; (3) as a result, the Company's fiscal
2023 and 2024 revenue and earnings would be adversely affected; and
(4), as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As the truth about Endava's business reached the market, the price
of Endava's stock suffered significant declines, harming investors.
For example, on February 29, 2024, before the market opened, Endava
filed a Form 6-K with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission, reporting revenues below expectations and drastically
cutting revenue guidance for full year 2024. Endava attributed the
revenue decline and reduced guidance to "clients [] hesitating on
when to commit the sizable spend needed to build production-ready
systems."
On this news, the price of Endava's common stock declined $26.65,
or 42%, to close at $37.17, on unusually heavy trading.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Endava's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
To learn more about the Endava class action, go to
www.faruqilaw.com/DAVA or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson
directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]
EQUAL EXCHANGE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general
public, v. EQUAL EXCHANGE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00055-AGS-SBC
(S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that the
Plaintiff's deadline to file her class certification motion be
continued until Jan. 31, 2025, by which time the Plaintiff will
have completed sufficient discovery and engaged the necessary
experts to support class certification.
On June 21, 2024, the Court entered a Scheduling Order Through
Deadline to File Motion for Class Certification, which set an
October 25, 2024 deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for
class certification.
On Sept. 11, 2024, the parties were able to resolve all of the
deficiencies Plaintiff identified in the responses, and Defendant
agreed to provide supplemental responses for each.
Equal Exchange offer a wide range of fair trade & organic coffee,
chocolate, tea, cocoa and snacks direct from small-scale farmers
and direct to your door.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iAGuZw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Melanie Monroe, Esq.
Trevor Flynn, Esq.
Peter Grazul, Esq.
FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1741
E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
mmonroe@fmfpc.com
tflynn@fmfpc.com
pgrazul@fmfpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David D. Samani, Esq.
Patrik Johansson, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: 213-250-7900
E-mail: David.Samani@lewisbrisbois.com
Patrik.Johansson@lewisbrisbois.com
EVO BRANDS: Amiel Sues Over Electronic Cigarettes' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
HAYLEY AMIEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVO Brands, LLC d/b/a Puff Bar, Defendants,
Case No. 7:24-cv-07327-PMH (S.D.N.Y., September 27, 2024) seeks
relief for consumers who have been misled about the nature and
safety of Puff Bar disposable electronic cigarettes.
According to the complaint, the Defendants marketed and advertised
their Puff Bar disposable electronic cigarettes as "tobacco-free,"
which misled consumers to think that these products are safer than
they are. Moreover, Defendants' conduct violated business and
consumer protection law and constitutes a breach of an implied
warranty of merchantability. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to
hold Defendants accountable for misleading representations made in
the past that caused economic injury, and also to hold Defendants
accountable for the representations and sale of these products
through resellers.
Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, EVO Brands LLC is a Delaware
limited liability company that designs, sells, markets, promotes,
and distributes Puff Bar disposable e-cigarettes, among other
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim E. Richman, Esq.
RICHMAN LAW & POLICY
1 Bridge Street, Suite 83
Irvington, NY 10533
Telephone: (914) 693-2018
E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com
EXPERT CONSULTING: Devany Seeks Budtenders' Unpaid Tips Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmie Devany, an individual, Shad Warren, an individual, and Cody
Kayser, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Expert Consulting and Management, LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company, d/b/a GreenPharms, Case No.
3:24-cv-08188-GMS (D. Ariz., Oct. 4, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, including unpaid tips, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Since the Plaintiffs' first day of work, GreenPharms, through
management, has been pooling all the tips from the budtenders and
distributing them to every employee in the store including
management, leads, and Budtenders, the suit alleges.
The Defendant's compensation practices have been routine and
consistent. Throughout the relevant time period over the past three
years, the Plaintiffs and the Collective Members regularly were not
paid all wages earned in the form of tips required by FLSA.
Furthermore, the Defendant's failure to pay for breaks required by
the FLSA arises from generally applicable policies or practices and
does not depend on the personal or unique circumstances of the
Plaintiffs or the Collective Members, added the suit.
Plaintiff Devany worked for GreenPharms as a budtender from Sept.
26, 2020, until Nov. 22, 2022.
Plaintiff Shad Warren began working for GreenPharms as a budtender
on May 23, 2022.
GreenPharms is an Arizona cannabis dispensary with locations in
Mesa and Flagstaff.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas L. Brown, Esq.
Carli B. Clarkson, Esq.
ERNST, BROWN & DRAPER, PLLC
1930 S. Alma School Road, SuiteA200
Mesa, AZ 85210
Telephone: (602) 324-9673
E-mail: TBrown@ebdlawyers.com
CClarkson@ebdlawyers.com
FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Roofing Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman reports that a federal judge largely upheld claims in
a class-action lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. alleging it designed
and sold millions of Super Duty trucks with dangerously weak roofs
prone to collapse in a rollover crash, according to attorneys at
Hagens Berman.
In the 37-page order, issued Sept. 30, 2024, U.S. District Judge
Brandy R. McMillion granted claims of violations of consumer
protection laws, unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment to
proceed in represented states, stating, "the Court finds Plaintiffs
have adequately alleged Ford had a duty to disclose the defect with
respect to each Plaintiff."
"We believe Ford's actions reveal that the automaker is more
interested in protecting its bottom line than its customers," said
Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. "Its Super Duty
trucks were marketed as 'Built Ford Tough,' but evidence shows that
Ford continually downgraded key structural features of the roof
design to cut costs, leaving drivers to face the dire consequences
in a rollover event."
The class-action lawsuit, originally filed on Sept. 2, 2022, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleges
Ford lobbied to reduce government standards for roof strength
testing procedures and subsequently "weakened almost every
component of the roof structure to save money," according to the
complaint. Allegedly, an estimated 5.2 million trucks have been
equipped with the same defective roof.
The complaint states Ford's internal documents, pre-launch testing
and public reports of fatal accidents prove Ford was aware of the
roof collapse risk well before its trucks hit the market yet failed
to warn consumers.
If you own or lease a 1999-2016 Ford Super Duty truck, you may be
entitled to compensation. Find out more about your rights in the
class-action lawsuit against Ford.
Risk of Catastrophic Injury or Death
In addition to the class-action lawsuit, Hagens Berman's personal
injury lawyers have been retained to file injury claims on behalf
of Ford Super Duty owners, accusing the automaker of negligence and
wrongful conduct.
Reports indicate that the weak roof design in affected Super Duty
trucks puts drivers and passengers at significant risk of
catastrophic injury, including paralysis and death, if their
vehicle is involved in a rollover and that it directly contributes
to the severity of injuries.
According to recent reports, Ford has faced more than a hundred
lawsuits and dozens of similar incidents of roof crush involving
the 1999-2016 Super Duty trucks, in addition to a historic $1.7
billion jury verdict in 2022 that followed the deaths of Melvin and
Vocile Hill, who died after their Ford-250 pickup truck collapsed
during a rollover crash.
If you or a loved one were injured in a rollover accident involving
an affected Ford Super Duty truck, speak to an attorney about your
rights, contact our personal injury legal team for a confidential
case review.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action
law firm with offices in nine cities. The firm has been named to
the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List seven times. More
about the law firm and its successes can be found at
www.hbsslaw.com. Find the firm on Twitter @ClassActionLaw.
Contacts
Ash Klann, Esq.
(206) 268-9363
pr@hbsslaw.com [GN]
FOREMOST INSURANCE: Ct. Directs Filing of Samuelle Discovery Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samuell, v. Foremost
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-01247-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. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CWWYzd at no extra
charge.[CC]
FULTON BANK: Alexander Sues Over Unlawful Multiple Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Sheanna Alexander, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FULTON BANK, Case No. 5:24-cv-05374 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 7,
2024), is brought against Defendant Fulton Bank ("Defendant"),
arising from its routine practices of assessing multiple fees on an
item.
The Defendant misleadingly and deceptively misrepresents its fee
practices including, upon information and belief, in its take-it-or
leave-it form adhesion contract. The Defendant's improper scheme to
extract funds from account holders has victimized Plaintiff and
hundreds of other similarly situated consumers. Unless enjoined,
Defendant will continue to engage in these schemes and will
continue to cause substantial injury to its consumers.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a Class of similarly
situated consumers, seeks to end Defendant's abusive and predatory
practice and force it to refund the improper charges. Plaintiff
asserts a claim for breach of contract, including breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks, inter alia,
damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Sheanna Alexander is a citizen and resident of Salem,
New Jersey and maintained a checking account with Defendant
Fulton Bank is a bank with over $30 billion in assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 234-6770
Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
- and -
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
GATEWAY CHURCH: Church Members Sue Over Tithe Misappropriation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Mugavero, writing for CBS News, reports that in a
class-action lawsuit filed Friday, October 4, 2024, four church
members accuse Gateway Church of misappropriating millions of
dollars in donations, known as a "tithe."
"So when you talk about giving money to the bride of Christ, which
is the church, you expect it to be handled biblically based," said
former Gateway member Valentina Hansen.
Hansen claims she's been banned from the church for speaking out.
She says tithes can total thousands of dollars per family.
"So, on the low end, I will say probably about $5,000 in a year, to
the high end of probably six figures being given to the church,"
Hansen said.
At a conference last year, former lead pastor Robert Morris said
15-20% of the church's yearly revenue goes to ministries across the
world. In the class-action lawsuit, it says a CPA oversaw Gateway
Global Ministries. The CPA claims the church's revenue totaled more
than $100 million, but he only saw no more than $3 million given to
global missions, which is far less than 15%.
"We are wanting to know where did the money really go? Did it go to
any cause?" Hansen said.
The four members listed in the suit now want their money back but
say the church will not offer them a refund, despite promises made
by Morris, who repeatedly told members in recorded sermons, "he
would give their money back if they were not fully satisfied with
their tithe at the end of the year."
"Our clients do not want to sue their church, but they deserve
answers and we are going to have to get subpoena power to get those
answers," said Micah Dortch, lead legal counsel for the
plaintiffs.
Gateway sent CBS News Texas a statement that reads in part: "These
are serious allegations. Some of these concerns were brought to us
recently, and we are actively investigating them. Funds donated to
our church are sacred, and it is important that we hold ourselves
to the highest biblical standards of ethics and integrity."
This is now the second lawsuit brought against the church this year
and follows a string of resignations from church leadership over
the summer. [GN]
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Griffin Sues Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------
Matthew Griffin, Francisco Morales, Frank Perry, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY, Case. No. 2477CV00913 (Mass. Super. Ct., Essex Cty., Sept.
4, 2024), is brought as a wage and hour class action in which
Plaintiffs seek an award of damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs arising out of Defendant's violations of
the Massachusetts Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are hourly
employees of GE who GE failed to pay the full amount of earned
wages to in a timely fashion as a result of GE's untimely delivery
of paychecks in various weeks from on or about September 2021 and
thereafter ("GE Untimely Payment").
The Plaintiffs were paid on an hourly basis. Defendant regularly
scheduled Plaintiffs' work hours. Defendant regularly received
reports indicating the hours worked by Plaintiffs. The Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiffs the full amount of their earned wages to
which each of them were owed within 6-days of the end of the 7-day
work period as required by the Massachusetts Wage Act, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant.
General Electric Corporation owns and operates an industrial plant
located in Lynn, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack J. Canzoneri, Esq.
MCDONALD LAMOND CANZONERI LLC
352 Turnpike Road, Suite 210
Southborough, MA 01772
Phone: (508) 485-6600
Email: jcanzoneri@masslaborlawyers.com
GITLAB INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 4
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of securities of GitLab Inc. (NASDAQ: GTLB) between June
6, 2023 and March 4, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important November 4, 2024 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased GitLab securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the GitLab class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28700 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than November 4, 2024. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, during the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) defendants created the false
impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to
GitLab's ability to develop and incorporate artificial intelligence
("AI") throughout the software development cycle in order to
optimize code generation, thereby increasing market demand and
making all levels of software development more affordable and
properly monetizing GitLab's AI features; (2) in truth, there was
weak market demand for GitLab's touted AI features and GitLab was
incurring an increasing amount of expenses involving JiHu, its
joint venture in China, as well as the annual company-wide summit;
and (3) defendants misled investors by continually highlighting
GitLab's AI-driven innovations to develop software more efficiently
and drive market share demands. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the GitLab class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28700 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
GREEN FLAMINGO: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Robles Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN FLAMINGO DISPENSARY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07479 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 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.greenflamingony.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.
Green Flamingo Dispensary, LLC is a company that sells online goods
and services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
GRIFOLS BIOLOGICALS: Henry Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert S. Henry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GRIFOLS BIOLOGICALS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV22398 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sept. 3, 2024), is brought under the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), California Labor Code (Labor Code) as
a result of the Defendants' failure to pay all wages.
The Defendants have failed to pay all wages; failed to pay
reporting time pay; failed to provide all meal periods; failed to
authorize and permit all paid rest periods; failed to reimburse for
all business expenses; failed to timely furnish accurate itemized
wage statements; and violations of Labor Code, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee.
The Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company and the owner
and operator of an industry, business and/or facility licensed to
do business and actually doing business in the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
Gregg Lander, Esq.
Vanessa M. Ruggles, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
1635 Pontius Avenue, Floor 2
Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361
Phone: (424) 320-6420
Fax: (424) 320-6454
Email: Emil@d.law
Gregg@d.law
Vanessa@d.law
GUARANTEED HOME: Faces Ocampo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS ALBERTO OCAMPO and CARLOS JIMENEZ, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GUARANTEED HOME
IMPROVEMENT LLC, and JUSTIN ROMANO, individually, and ABRAHAM
FINKLER, individually, and RICARDO MARTINEZ, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 9:24-cv-06980 (E.D.N.Y., October 2, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
spread-of-hours compensation, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements, and failure to furnish accurate wage notices.
Mr. Ocampo worked for the Defendants as a chimney technician from
in or around June 2021 through March 12, 2024, while Mr. Jimenez
worked for the Defendants as a helper from November 13, 2023,
through February 13, 2024.
Guaranteed Home Improvement LLC is a contracting company based in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yuezhu Liu, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
HALLKEEN MANAGEMENT: Cassamas Sues Over Violation of Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cassamas, Michael Forbes, and John Macmaster, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated persons v. HALLKEEN
MANAGEMENT, INC.; HALLKEEN ASSISTED LIVING COMMUNITIES LLC;
PROSPECT HOUSE GROUP LLC; HALLKEEN ASSISTED LIVING LLC; and
PROSPECT HOUSE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. Case
1:24-cv-12574 (D. Mass., Oct. 7, 2024), is brought as a result of
the Defendants' violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Fair
Housing Act; Massachusetts General Laws; and various regulations.
HallKeen accepts and has accepted substantial government benefits
in connection with Prospect House, including tax credits from the
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit ("LIHTC") Program and Medicaid and
Medicare funding under the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the
Elderly ("PACE"). As a matter of contract, statute, and regulation,
HallKeen is prohibited from requiring Prospect House's low-income
residents to pay fees other than rent.
HallKeen nevertheless requires each Plaintiff and Class Member, as
a matter of policy and practice, to pay a substantial, variable,
non-itemized, additional fee for unspecified services, which it
labels an "ancillary charge" in its resident ledgers. This charge
is referred to herein as the "Ancillary Fee."
The Ancillary Fee is not just prohibited by the government benefit
programs that facilitate HallKeen's business, it is unjustified by
any services that HallKeen routinely provides, it improperly varies
between residents despite providing the same services to all
residents, and, by its design, it leaves the Plaintiffs and the
Class Members impoverished and without the means to pay for
personal needs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were asked the Ancillary Fee in addition to their
rent.
The Defendants are a group of business entities under common
management and control that own, operate, and/or manage dozens of
multi-family residential properties and assisted living
communities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean Ahern, Esq.
Ilana B. Gelfman, Esq.
Carly Margolis, Esq.
GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES
197 Friend Street
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: 617-371-1234
Email: SAhern@gbls.org
IGelfman@gbls.org
CMargolis@gbls.org
- and -
Andrew J. Gallo, Esq.
Michael K. Gocksch, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617-951-8117
Email: andrew.gallo@morganlewis.com
michael.gocksch@morganlewis.com
HANWHA IMPACT: Polk Sues Over Discrimination, Wrongful Termination
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACARI F. POLK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HANWHA IMPACT PARTNERS INC., HANWHA
SOLUTIONS USA HOLDINGS CORPORATION, HANWHA CORP, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV25772 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., October 3, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code, California
Government Code, Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Family
Rights Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as Human Resources Director
in San Francisco, California from approximately April 2022 until
his alleged wrongful termination in approximately July 2023.
Hanwha Corp. is a conglomerate for several types of businesses,
headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.
Hanwha Impact Partners Inc. is a subsidiary of Hanwha Corp,
headquartered in California.
Hanwha Solutions USA Holdings Corporation is a subsidiary of Hanwha
Corp, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle C. Worrell, Esq.
WORRELL LAW FIRM, APC
1717 Old Tustin Avenue, Unit E
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Telephone: (657) 232-1450
Facsimile: (657) 232-1430
Email: kcw@worrell-law.com
HESS CORP: Conspires to Restrict Crude Oil Production, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CITY OF SAN JOSE v. HESS CORPORATION, EXXON
MOBIL CORPORATION, PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. f/k/a CENTENNIAL
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC., CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION,
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC., DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC., EOG
RESOURCES, INC., OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, PIONEER NATURAL
RESOURCES COMPANY (RE: SHALE OIL ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
1:24-cv-01000 (D.N.M., Oct. 3, 2024) is an antitrust class action
suit about a conspiracy to restrict the production of crude oil by
the major U.S. producers of shale oil, their Wall Street investors,
the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and certain
non-OPEC member countries aligned with OPEC, called "OPEC+,"
seeking treble damages and injunctive relief against the
Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' agreement to limit
their respective shale production volumes has had, and continues to
have, the effect of fixing and/or stabilizing at an artificially
high-level U.S. (and global) crude oil prices, which in turn fixed
and/or stabilized gasoline and diesel fuel prices in the United
States at an artificially high level. The Defendants' cartel is a
per se unlawful restraint of trade under numerous state antitrust
and competition laws. The Plaintiffs and the Classes suffered
substantial harm as a result of the supra-competitive prices they
paid for gasoline or diesel for commercial use as a direct and
proximate result of the cartel to constrain domestic production of
shale oil in the United States. The Plaintiffs brings this suit to
recover that loss.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of persons and entities
that, like the Plaintiffs, paid artificially inflated prices for
motor vehicle fuel, gasoline, or diesel, that they purchased for
commercial use.
County of San Mateo is a county and a political subdivision of the
State of California. The Plaintiff purchased light petroleum
products, and it was injured by paying more for those products that
it would have but for Defendants' conduct.
Hess Corporation is a producer of crude oil from shale oil
formations in North Dakota.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mary T. Torres, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARY TORRES
201 Third Street NW, Suite 1950
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 944-9030
Facsimile: (505) 944-9091
E-mail: Mtt@marytorreslaw.com
- and -
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
Ellen Wen, Esq.
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Adam Zapala, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
999 Northlake Way Ste 215
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 778-2123
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: kswope@cpmlegal.com
Ewen@cpmlegal.com
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
azapala@cpmlegal.com
vmontiel@cpmlegal.com
The Attorneys for Public Entities of County of San Mateo are:
John D. Nibbelin, Esq.
David A. Silberman, Esq.
Brian J. Wong, Esq.
500 County Center, 4th Floor
Redwood City CA 94063-1664
Telephone: (650) 363-4749
Facsimile: (650) 363-4034
E-mail: jnibbelin@smcgov.org
dsilberman@smcgov.org
bwong@smcgov.org
The Attorneys for City of San Jose are:
Nora Frimann, Esq.
Ardell Johnson, Esq.
200 E. Santa Clara St.
San Jose CA, 95113-1905
Telephone: (408) 535-1900
Facsimile: (408) 998-3131
E-mail: nora.frimann@sanjoseca.gov
ardell.johnson@sanjoseca.gov
HIGHER EDUCATION: Maldonado Sues Over Failure to Suspend Loans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Maldonado, Anna Varela, Alma Gary and Jeff Plamondon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, and DOES
1-30, Case No. 24CV090146 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Sept. 4,
2024), is brought against the Defendants' failure to suspend
federal student loans, in violation of the California's Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act,
Student Borrower Bill of Rights, and Unfair Competition Law.
Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri (MOHELA")
has refused to implement federal student loan discharges to which
Plaintiffs and the proposed class members have long been entitled.
Although the U.S Department of Education ("Department") publicly
announced that Plaintiffs' and proposed class members' loans would
be discharged, and notified Plaintiffs and proposed class members
that they had no further obligations on the loans, MOHELA continues
to collect and report on these accounts as if they had never been
cancelled, refuses to issue authorized refunds to the borrowers,
and has demanded payment from Plaintiffs and proposed class
members.
In late summer 2023, shortly before the end of a COVID-related
suspension of federal student loan payment obligations, Plaintiffs
received an unpleasant shock: MOHELA, their federal student loan
servicer, placed these loans back into repayment status, and in
many cases started sending bills—even though the Department told
Plaintiffs that their loans would be discharged and that they would
no longer have to make payments.
MOHELA knew or should have known that every federal student loan
associated with a Group Discharge school was not due and owing and
should not be collected upon or repotted as owing to consumer
credit reporting agencies. Despite receiving notice of the Group
Discharges as early as April 2022, and fielding many complaints
from the borrowers, MOHELA has continued to represent to Plaintiffs
that they remain obligated on their cancelled loans, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs' federal student loans are serviced by MOHELA.
MOHELA is a federal student loan servicer and holds a license under
the California Student Loan Servicing Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah Zinner, Esq.
Rebecca C. Eisenbrey, Esq.
Rebecca C. Ellis, Esq.
PROJECT ON PREDATORY STUDENT LENDING
769 Centre Street
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
Phone: (617) 390-2669
Email: nzinner@ppsl.org
- and -
Daniel "Sparky" Abraham, Esq.
JUBILEE LEGAL
300 E. Esplanade Drive, Suite 900
Oxnard, CA 93036
Phone: (805) 946-0386
Email: sparky@jubilee.legal
- and -
Adam McNeile, Esq.
Malachi J. Haswell, Esq.
KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP
1120 Mar West., Ste. C2
Tiburon, CA 94920
Phone: (415) 632-1900
Email: kai@kbklegal.com
adam@kbklegal.com
HILL'S PET: Fact Discovery Due Jan. 31, 2025
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KETONATURAL PET FOODS,
INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., a subsidiary of COLGATE-PALMOLIVE
CO., Case No. 2:24-cv-02046-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel
Mitchell entered a scheduling order to govern the class
certification stage of the case:
Event
Deadline/Setting
Substantial completion of document production Dec. 20, 2024
relating to class certification:
Fact discovery complete on class certification Jan. 31, 2025
Issues:
KetoNatural's motion for class certification and Feb. 28,
2025
service of expert disclosures relating to
class-certification issues:
Hill's response to motion for class April 15,
2025
certification, service of expert disclosures
relating to class-certification issues, and
motions to exclude KetoNatural's expert
testimony on class certification issues:
Jointly filed mediation notice: April 25,
2025
KetoNatural's reply in support of class May 16, 2025
certification and motions to exclude Hill's
expert testimony on class certification
issues:
Mediation completed: June 27,
2025
Hill's Pet is an American pet food company that produces dog and
cat foods.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xrWrFi at no extra
charge.[CC]
IOVATE HEALTH: Senior Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
--------------------------------------------------------------
MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07438 (S.D.N.Y., October 2, 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://muscletech.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, empty links that contain no
text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Iovate Health Sciences International Inc. is a company that sells
online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
ITERIS INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Almaviva S.p.A.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Iteris, Inc. (Nasdaq:ITI), relating to its proposed merger
with Almaviva S.p.A. Under the terms of the agreement, Iteris
shares will automatically be converted into the right to receive
$7.20 in cash.
ACT SOON. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for October 22, 2024.
Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/iteris-inc/. It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.
-- PetIQ, Inc. (Nasdaq:PETQ), relating to its proposed merger
with Bansk Group. Under the terms of the agreement, PetIQ shares
will be automatically converted into the right to receive $31.00 in
cash per share.
NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for
October 22, 2024.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/petiq-inc/. It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.
-- The First Bancshares, Inc. (NYSE:FBMS), relating to its
proposed merger with Renasant Corp. Under the terms of the
agreement, each share of First Bancshares stock will be converted
into the right to receive 1 share of Renasant common stock.
TIME IS RUNNING OUT. Act before the Shareholder Vote, scheduled for
October 22, 2024.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/the-first-bancshares-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Collaza Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
EVIE COLLAZA is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her
lawsuit entitled Evie Collaza, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-6030, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action suit against the
Defendant alleging (1) violation of New York General Business Law
Sec. 349, (2) violation of New York General Business Law Sec. 350,
(3) unjust enrichment, and (4) seeking declaratory relief.
On Dec. 12, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or,
alternatively, to transfer this action to the District of New
Jersey.
On Aug. 27, 2024, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss with prejudice through an Order entered by Judge Andrew L.
Carter, Jr. The Court finds that the Plaintiff's claims are
preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act and,
subsequently, does not consider the parties' arguments as to
transfer.
The appellate case is captioned Collaza v. Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc., Case No. 24-2568, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 27, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant EVIE COLLAZA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
KEURIG GREEN: Groff Appeals 2nd Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA GROFF is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Christina Groff, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Keurig Green Mountain,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01492-SSS-SP, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, is brought against the Defendant for claims
under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved
to dismiss on Aug. 4, 2023.
On Sept. 5, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint through an Order entered by Judge
Sunshine S. Sykes.
On Apr. 5, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Apr. 19, 2024. The
Defendant also filed a motion to strike class allegations, claims,
and relief from the second amended complaint.
On Sept. 25, 2024, Judge Sykes granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint and denied as moot the
Defendant's motion to strike.
The appellate case is captioned Groff v. Keurig Green Mountain,
Inc., Case No. 24-5905, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 27, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 2,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 6, 2024;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on December 6, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTINA GROFF, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Gillian Leigh Wade, Esq.
WADE KILPELA SLADE, LLP
2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 100
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Defendant-Appellee KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC. is represented by:
Nicholas J. Hoffman, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
KEVITA INC: Pitre Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yolanda Pitre, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Kevita, Inc., Case No. 24-CIV-04791
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on Sept. 6, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-06309-JST to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
KeVita, Inc. - -- https://kevita.com/ -produces and markets
coconut-based organic probiotic drinks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Braun, Esq.
KUZYK LAW
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (213) 401-4100
Fax: (213) 401-0311
Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew Santo Tulumello, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
2001 M Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Phone: (202) 682-7000
Email: drew.tulumello@weil.com
LA LIBRAIRIE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Chairawati Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
POPY CHAIRAWATI, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class v. LA LIBRAIRIE KITCHEN & CAFE L.L.C. d/b/a LA
LIBRAIRIE KITCHEN & CAFE, LA LIBRAIRIE DES ENFANTS LLC d/b/a LA
LIBRAIRIE DES ENFANTS, and FADILA LYNDA OUHENIA-HUDSON a/k/a LYNDA
HUDSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-07495 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2024) seeks to
recover unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages, including overtime, due
to a fixed salary scheme, unpaid wages, due to an illegal tip
retention policy, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law as well as seeks to recover liquidated damages,
statutory penalties due to Wage Theft Prevention Act violations,
and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff additionally alleges that Individual Defendant Fadila
Lynda Ouhenia-Hudson unjustly enriched herself at the expense of
the Plaintiff and Class Members, and seeks to recover all damages
sustained as a result of Individual Defendant Lynda Hudson's unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiff brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure ("F.R.C.P.") Rule 23, on behalf of all
non-exempt employees, including servers, cashiers, bussers, food
runners, cooks, associates, and dishwashers, employed by the
Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing
of the Complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server at La Librairie
Kitchen & Cafe from Sept. 28, 2022 until his termination on April
5, 2023.
La Librairie Kitchen & Cafe was a bookstore that catered to
adults.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
LABOR SOURCE: Speight Seeks Reconsideration of Sept. 23 Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM SPEIGHT, JASON
HAGENS, SCOTTIE WILLIAMS, and TANGELA FLANAGAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LABOR SOURCE, LLC, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00112-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order for an order reconsidering and reversing its Sept.
23, 2024, Order denying Plaintiffs' April 10, 2024, motion for
class certification.
The Plaintiffs submit that the Court overlooked evidence showing
that the Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members performed
sufficient work in North Carolina during the putative Class Period
to satisfy the territorial requirements of the NCWHA and the
certification requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
The Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court revise its Order to
grant class certification of the proposed Class, as limited in the
Court's Order to workers who:
"performed labor or services within the State of North
Carolina,"
or of the alternative narrowed proposed Class, as set forth in
the
accompanying memorandum of law.
Labor Source is a nationwide staffing agency.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JMNZWq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan A. Quadrel, Esq.
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
John J. Nestico, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone: (510) 740-2946;
Facsimile:(415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
rquadrel@schneiderwallace.com
jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Appeals Class Certification Order in Aley Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit
entitled Rhonda Aley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lightfire Partners, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-330, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York.
On Apr. 7, 2022, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, brought this putative class action against the
Defendant for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.
On Dec. 11, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Anne M. Nardacci on Aug. 30, 2024. The Court ruled that the
Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).
The appellate case is captioned Lightfire Partners, LLC v. Aley,
Case No. 24-2539, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on September 26, 2024. [BN]
Defendant-Petitioner LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS, LLC is represented by:
John D. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
CUNNINGHAM DALMAN, P.C.
321 Settlers Road, Suite 3600
P.O. Box 1767
Holland, MI 49422
LOBSTER HUB: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Tip Pooling
-------------------------------------------------
Victoria Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LOBSTER HUB LLC, TODD NELSON, TARA NELSON, and T.J.
NELSON, Case No. 2484CV02332 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Sept.
3, 2024), is brought against the Defendants’ conduct in requiring
or allowing the pooling of tips between waitstaff employees and
managerial employees violates the Massachusetts Tips Law.
The Defendants employ wait staff to serve food and beverages to
customers. Customers routinely leave tips for wait staff at
Defendants’ food trucks. Wait staff employees at Defendants’
food trucks have been required to pool these tips with individuals
who are not eligible to participate in wait staff tip pools,
including, specifically, individuals with managerial
responsibilities during shifts., says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has worked as a wait staff employee for Defendants on
their two food trucks.
The Defendants own and operate approximately two Cousin’s Maine
Lobster mobile food trucks in Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles E Rodman, Esq.
Michael V. Parras, Jr., Esq.
Samuel J. Miller, Esq.
Leah E. Paxton, Esq.
RODMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW
5 Commonwealth Road, Suite 3C
Natick, MA 01760
Phone: (617) 820-5250
Email: chuck.rodman@rodmanemploymentlaw.com
mike.parras@rodmanemploymentlaw.com
sam.miller@rodmanemploymentlaw.com
leah.paxton@rodmanemploymentlaw.com
LZG INTERNATIONAL: Carey Sues Over False Financial Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN CAREY, MSS CAPITAL, LLC, HUNTS ROAD, LLC, ION1 LLC, BRICKELL
CAPITAL SOLO 401K TRUST, KAILEY LEWIS, EDWARD REINLE, EMANUEL
VALADAKIS and ZITAH MCMILLAN-WARD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL MOE, PETER B. RITZ, LZG
INTERNATIONAL, INC. ("LZGI"), ROGER HAMILTON, and GENIUS GROUP
LIMITED ("GNS"), Case No. 1:24-cv-07551 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2024) is
a federal securities class action brought pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Case on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all
persons or entities who, between Dec. 1, 2023 to Sept. 25, 2024,
purchased or acquired the securities of GNS on the NYSE or pursuant
to other domestic transactions, as a result of the LZGI-GNS Merger
on March 14, 2024.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Michael Moe and Peter Ritz
used their publicly traded companies LZGI and GNS to defraud
investors of more than $30 million through a fraudulent LZGI-GNS
merger that was forged to conceal their theft of corporate funds
and unauthorized issuances of millions of LZGI and GNS shares to
themselves.
The LZGI-GNS Merger proceeded based on false information LZGI,
Ritz, Moe, GNS and Roger Hamilton provided to the companies'
investors and to the SEC, and resulted in Moe and Ritz transferring
LZGI's only revenue generating asset to GNS while they attempted to
assume control over GNS, whose share price has since plummeted.
As a result of the Defendants false and misleading statements, as
well as Defendants' fraudulent omission of key adverse material
facts regarding the GNS-LZGI Merger, the Plaintiffs received less
GNS shares than they were entitled to. Indeed, due to Defendants'
fraudulent actions, the Plaintiffs received GNS shares which are
virtually worthless, resulting in millions of dollars in losses,
says the suit.
In addition, the Defendants forced LZGI to engage in fraudulent
direct dealing with Carter, Moe, and Ritz, and issue millions of
shares to themselves, for no consideration, and without any
disclosure or approval.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiff Carey is a former Chief Operating Officer of LGZI and a
shareholder of the company, owning 6,074,452 LZGI shares.
LZGI owns the assets of FatBrain, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company which was intended to develop artificial intelligence
software with applications in various sectors.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey W. Gutchess, Esq.
Bernardo N. de Mello Franco
AXS LAW GROUP, PLLC
2121 NW 2nd Avenue, Suite 201
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 297-1878
E-mail: jeff@axslawgroup.com
bernardo@axslawgroup.com
- and -
Stephen McMullin, Esq.
MCMULLIN & ASSOCIATES
11 Broadway, Suite 615
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 882-1606
Facsimile: (866) 750-7586
E-mail: stephen@mcmullinlawfirm.com
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Executives Must Face Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey denies the motion filed by corporate
executives of Mallinckrodt, PLC, as defendants, seeking to dismiss
the amended complaint in the case captioned as CONTINENTAL GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY and PERCY ROCKDALE, LLC, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SIGURDUR
OLAFSSON, BRYAN M. REASONS, and PAUL BISARO, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 23-3662 (ZNQ) (JBD) (D.N.J.).
The Defendants' deadline to file their Answer to Plaintiffs'
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is extended to October
21, 2024.
Plaintiffs filed an initial complaint on July 7, 2023. Plaintiffs
on December 26, 2023, filed a 90-page amended class-action
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Counts I and II, respectively).
Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss on February 26, 2024.
The individually named Defendants are:
-- Sigurdur Olafsson, the Chief Executive Officer, President,
and Director of the Company;
-- Bryan Reasons, the Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company; and
-- Paul Bisaro, the Chairman of the Company's Board of
Directors.
Plaintiffs are class members who acquired Mallinckrodt securities
between June 17, 2022, and August 25, 2023.
Plaintiffs allege that throughout the class period, they were
harmed because of Defendants' "materially false and/or misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.
Moreover, the Amended Complaint stated that "Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements" because "(i)
Mallinckrodt had overstated its financial strength, including
purported enhancements to its liquidity and balance sheet,
following its emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection;
[and] (ii) . . . the Company overstated its ability to timely make
one or more payments to the Trust for the Opioid Settlement." These
false and misleading statements "negatively impacted Mallinckrodt's
ability and/or willingness to timely meet interest payment
obligations on certain bonds" and "increased [the] risk of having
to again file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection."
In their Motion, Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss the
Amended Complaint
because:
(1) "Plaintiffs allege only that Defendants should have been
more pessimistic in their assessment of Mallinckrodt's business
prospects and not that Defendants made statements that were
actually false on their face and/or misleading by virtue of
omitting to disclose a material fact";
(2) "Plaintiffs do not plead facts specific to each Defendant
giving rise to a strong inference of scienter"; and
(3) "Defendants' statements cited in the [Amended] Complaint are
forward-looking statements protected by the [PSLRA's] safe harbor"
provision.
The Court concludes Plaintiffs have pled sufficiently to survive a
motion to dismiss.
Materiality/Misleading Statements
The Court finds that the alleged misleading statements are
plausibly pled to be material -- that is, important to a reasonable
investor. Judge Quraishi says, "A reasonable investor would want
to know the truth about a company's financial projections and
stability, and whether a subsequent bankruptcy is on the horizon
given that the Company recently emerged from bankruptcy. Arguably,
if there is a time to be honest to investors, it is right after
filing for bankruptcy. Plaintiffs also allege that there were
omitted facts that would have helped Plaintiffs anticipate a second
bankruptcy proceeding. It is likewise plausible that the important
omissions would have 'significantly altered' the information
available to Plaintiffs. Consequently, none of the allegations of
misrepresentations or omissions 'are so obviously unimportant to an
investor that reasonable minds cannot differ on the question of
materiality.'"
Scienter
Contrary to Defendants' contentions, the allegations in the Amended
Complaint show scienter as to each individual Defendant. All that
is required at this stage of the proceedings is that Plaintiffs
plead particularized facts to support a strong inference of
scienter, which the Court concludes they have done.
PSLRA Safe-Harbor
Lastly, Defendants argue that many of their statements are not
misleading because they are forward-looking opinions protected by
Omnicare and the PSLRA's safe-harbor provision. The Court rejects
this argument.
Judge Quraishi explains, "Contrary to Defendants' arguments, the
statements cited in the Amended Complaint, when read as a whole,
appear to be more than mere opinions, beliefs, or future
projections of the company. The Court recognizes that puffery and
corporate optimism are permissible, but nevertheless finds that the
Amended Complaint sufficiently pleads a securities violation to
move passed the motion to dismiss stage. Many of the 'optimistic'
statements, when read together with the background facts,
demonstrate that Defendants likely knew contradictory facts and/or
acted recklessly in making such statements, especially after
emerging from bankruptcy. To a reasonable investor, the statements
in the Amended Complaint create an illusion that the Company was
thriving, when indeed, it was not. Thus, the statements are more
than mere corporate optimism, puffery, and projections about the
finances and profits of the Company. Moreover, many of the
statements alleged contain 'mixed present/future statement[s]'
which are not entitled to the PSLRA's safe-harbor provision.
Further, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that simply because
Defendants stated 'I believe' in some of their statements does not
make those statements protected by the PSLRA's safe-harbor
provision."
Violation of Exchange Act Section 20(a) (Count II)
Defendants argue that without a primary violation of Section 10(b),
a violation of Section 20(a) fails. The Court rejects this argument
given that is has found that Plaintiffs sufficiently pled a primary
violation.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gHOFiQ
About Mallinckrodt plc
Mallinckrodt -- http://www.mallinckrodt.com/-- is a global
business consisting of multiple wholly-owned subsidiaries that
develop, manufacture, market and distribute specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies. The Company's Specialty
Brands reportable segment's areas of focus include autoimmune and
rare diseases in specialty areas like neurology, rheumatology,
nephrology, pulmonology and ophthalmology; immunotherapy and
neonatal respiratory critical care therapies; analgesics; and
gastrointestinal products. Its Specialty Generics reportable
segment includes specialty generic drugs and active pharmaceutical
ingredients.
On Oct. 12, 2020, Mallinckrodt plc and certain of its affiliates
sought Chapter 11 protection in Delaware (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case
No. 20-12522) to seek approval of a restructuring that would
reducetotal debt by $1.3 billion and resolve opioid-related claims
against them. Mallinckrodt in mid-June 2022 successfully completed
its reorganization process, emerged from Chapter 11 and completed
the Irish Examinership proceedings.
Mallinckrodt Plc said in a regulatory filing in early June 2023
that it was considering a second bankruptcy filing and other
options after its lenders raised concerns over an upcoming $200
million payment related to opioid-related litigation.
Mallinckrodt plc and certain of its affiliates again sought Chapter
11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 23-11258) on Aug. 28,
2023. Mallinckrodt disclosed $5,106,900,000 in assets and
$3,512,000,000 in liabilities as of June 30, 2023.
Judge John T. Dorsey oversees the new cases.
In the prior Chapter 11 cases, the Debtors tapped Latham & Watkins,
LLP and Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. as their bankruptcy
counsel; Arthur Cox and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz as corporate
and finance counsel; Ropes & Gray, LLP as litigation counsel;
Torys, LLP as CCAA counsel; Guggenheim Securities, LLC as
investment banker; and AlixPartners, LLP, as restructuring
advisor.
In the new Chapter 11 cases, the Debtors tapped Latham & Watkins,
LLP and Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., as their bankruptcy
counsel; Arthur Cox and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz as corporate
and finance counsel; Guggenheim Securities, LLC as investment
banker; and AlixPartners, LLP, as restructuring advisor. Kroll is
the claims agent.
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ARRIAZOLA; and CODY BAKER, individually on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00737 (D. Utah, Oct. 2, 2024)
alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, the Plaintiffs seek to recover from the Defendant
up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60
days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without
cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees
in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were
terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the
60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the
suit.
Management & Training Corporation provides academic, career,
technical, and social skills training. The Company offers
rehabilitative educational opportunities, runs workforce
development programs, and job corps centers. BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason R. Hull, Esq.
MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 456-7655
Email: jhull@mohtrial.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Email: sam@Straussborrelli.Com
raina@Straussborrelli.Com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
223 ROSA PARKS AVE. SUITE 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
MAXIMUS HUMAN SERVICES: Andrisani Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Julie Mora Andrisani, an individual, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. MAXIMUS HUMAN
SERVICES, INC., a Virginia corporation; MAXIMUS, INC., a Virginia
corporation; THE PANTHER GROUP, INC., a Massachusetts corporation;
and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 24CV016457 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on Oct. 7, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-at-01266.
The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to raise the following nine
causes of action on behalf of herself and all individuals who are
or were employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees within the
State of California at any time during the period from four years
preceding the filing of this Complaint to final judgment and who
reside in California: all in violation of California Labor Codes
and the California Business & Professions Code for Failure to Pay
All Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Failure to
Provide Rest Periods and Pay Missed Rest Period Premiums; Failure
to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Missed Meal Period Premiums;
Failure to Maintain Accurate Employment Records; Failure to Pay
Wages Timely During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Earned and
Unpaid at Separation; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Barbara I. Antonucci, Esq.
Nicholas A. Stratton, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 918-3000
Facsimile: (415) 918-3034
Email: bantonucci@constangy.com
nstratton@constangy.com
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA: Meltzer Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mazda Motor of
America, Inc. The case is styled as Joshua Meltzer, individually,
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Mazda
Motor of America, Inc., Mazda Motor Corporation, Case No.
8:24-cv-01938-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal., Sept. 6, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Mazda Motor of America, Inc. -- http://www.mazdausa.com/-- doing
business as Mazda North American Operations Inc., retails
automobile vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sophia Marie Rios, Esq.
Berger Montague PC
8241 La Mesa Boulevard, Suite A
La Mesa, CA 91942
Phone: (619) 489-0300
Email: srios@bm.net
- and -
Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
Email: agertner@bm.net
apark@bm.net
rpaul@bm.net
MCLAUGHLIN BODY: Hagerman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vernard Hagerman, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MCLAUGHLIN BODY COMPANY, a corporation, Case No.
1:24-cv-01372-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill., Oct. 7, 2024), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $17.04. In
addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various
types of routine and non-discretionary pay into their payment
structure. For example, Plaintiff received a cost-of-living
payment. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he was
not earning a consistent and properly calculated overtime wage that
included cost-of-living payments in the regular rate for proper
overtime calculation. As non-exempt employees, McLaughlin Body
Company's hourly employees were entitled to full compensation for
all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular
rate" of pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by McLaughlin Body Company from
September 2021 through May 24, 2024.
The Defendant is an off highway and complex vehicle equipment
manufacturer that provides assembly and complex metal components
for vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Phone: (269) 250-7500
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
kmilz@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Meghan Higday, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park E., Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 824-3828
Email: mh@melmedlaw.com
jm@melmedlaw.com
MDL 2262: Plaintiffs Seek Permission to File Exhibits Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Re: Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:11-md-02262
(S.D.N.Y.), the OTC Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting request permission to file under seal:
(1) the memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits submitted
in
support of OTC Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as
to
Defendants Credit Suisse AG, The Royal Bank of Scotland
Group
plc, Royal Bank of Scotland plc, and UBS AG; and
(2) the memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits submitted
in
support of Plaintiffs' motion to exclude certain opinions of
Dr. Dennis Carlton.
These filings include materials that have been designated as
Confidential or Highly Confidential pursuant to the Amended
Stipulation and Protective Order dated May 12, 2016. Consistent
with Your Honor's Sept. 27, 2024, Order, by Oct. 18, 2024, OTC
Plaintiffs will file a public set of all materials submitted in
connection with these motions.
OTC Plaintiffs are delivering courtesy copies of the sealed filings
to Chambers in accordance with Section 2.H.2 of Your Honor's
Individual Practices and are also serving the sealed filings on
liaison counsel for Defendants via email.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lm8YHQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: BCarmody@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
James R. Martin, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
45 BroadwaySuite 920
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (646) 876-4400
MDL 2262: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify LIBOR-Based Instrument Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:11-md-02262 (S.D.N.Y.), the OTC Plaintiffs
will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3), for an Order certifying the following class for OTC
Plaintiffs' antitrust claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
(Count I of the Corrected Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint)
against Credit Suisse AG, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc,
Royal Bank of Scotland plc, and UBS AG:
"All persons or entities residing in the United States that
purchased, directly from a Panel Bank (or a Panel Bank's
subsidiaries or affiliates), a LIBOR-Based Instrument that paid
interest indexed to a U.S. dollar LIBOR rate set any time
during
the period August 2007 through August 2009 (the "Class Period")
regardless of when the LIBOR-Based Instrument was purchased
(the
"OTC Class")."
Excluded from the OTC Class are Panel Banks and their
employees,
affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries and any judicial officers
and staff presiding over this action.
For purposes of this Class definition, "Panel Bank" means Bank of
America; BTMU; Barclays; Citibank; Credit Suisse; Deutsche Bank;
HBOS; HSBC; JPMorgan; Lloyds; Norinchukin; Rabobank; RBC; RBS;
SocGen; UBS; and WestLB (n/k/a Portigon).
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WWBcWO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
Hilary Scherrer, Esq.
Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
hscherrer@hausfeld.com
ngiddings@hausfeld.com
gsmith@hausfeld.com
- and -
William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
Seth Ard, Esq.
Geng Chen, Esq.
Daniel D. Duhaime, Esq.
Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
Drew D. Hansen, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
One Manhattan West, 50th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
sard@susmangodfrey.com
gchen@susmangodfrey.com
dduhaime@susmangodfrey.com
mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
dhansen@susmangodfrey.com
MDL 2873: Faces McDonald Suit Over Concealed AFFF Health Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK McDONALD, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-05386-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action
seeking to recover compensatory and punitive damages that arise out
of the permanent and significant damages caused by Plaintiff's
exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) products
at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not seek or obtain
permission or consent from him before engaging in such acts and/or
omissions that caused, allowed, and/or otherwise resulted in his
exposure to AFFF and the contamination of his blood and/or body
with per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and resulting
biopersistence and bioaccumulation of such PFAS in their blood
and/or body. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantoness.
The McDonald case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE:
AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company, is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.
[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
MDL 2873: Mays Suit Seeks Damages Over AFFF Exposure
----------------------------------------------------
KENDEL MAYS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-05390-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action
seeking to recover compensatory and punitive damages that arise out
of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct
result of exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not seek or obtain
permission or consent from him before engaging in such acts and/or
omissions that caused, allowed, and/or otherwise resulted in his
exposure to AFFF and the contamination of his blood and/or body
with per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and resulting
biopersistence and bioaccumulation of such PFAS in their blood
and/or body. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence,
battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability,
fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties,
and wantoness.
The Mays case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS
FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Headquartered in St. Paul, MN, 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company, is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.
[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
METHODE ELECTRONICS: CCMGERP Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
City Of Cape Coral Municipal General Employees' Retirement Plan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
METHODE ELECTRONICS, INC., DONALD W. DUDA, RONALD L.G. TSOUMAS, and
JOSEPH KHOURY, Case No. 1:24-cv-09654 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 7, 2024), is
brought as a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Methode common stock between December 2, 2021, and March 6, 2024,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC
Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly assured
investors that Methode's Automotive segment was growing and
acquiring new business, but failed to disclose that Methode could
not adequately meet its customers' needs because the Company was
saddled by operational inefficiencies in North America, including
planning deficiencies, inventory shortages, and shipping delays.
For example, on June 23, 2022, in connection with the announcement
of the Company's fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2022 financial
results, Defendant Duda announced the Company's "three-year organic
sales compounded annual growth rate [("CAGR")] target of 6%," which
"demonstrates that our business model is not just healthy, but as
prospering from the strategic step that we have taken to grow the
business."
This Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the
Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: Methode's Automotive
segment was not growing in the EV space to sufficiently replace the
revenue that Methode was losing from the end of its GM center
console program; the Company's Automotive segment, particularly as
it relates to Methode's operations in North America, was
experiencing significant, ongoing operational inefficiencies that
impaired the Company's ability to generate sustainable revenue
growth and profitability; and as a result, Defendants'
representations about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
significant decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock when the truth was revealed, Plaintiff and other members of
the class have suffered significant damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Methode common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.
Methode designs, manufactures, and produces custom engineered
solutions and products for user interfaces, LED lighting systems,
and power distribution and sensor applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Josefson, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
875 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 373-3880
Facsimile: (312) 794-7801
Email: avi@blbglaw.com
MICHAEL POMPEO: Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Class Cert Order Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFGHAN AND IRAQI ALLIES
UNDER SERIOUS THREAT BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITHFUL SERVICE TO THE
UNITED STATES, ON THEIR OWN AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. MICHAEL R. POMPEO, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01388-TSC-MAU (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Tanya Chutkan
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' consent motion to amend
the class certification order:
-- The Court further entered an order certifying this case to
proceed as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is amended, so that
the
Plaintiff Class shall consist of:
"all people who have (1) applied for an Afghan or Iraqi SIV
pursuant to the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009, Pub. L.
No. 111-8, 123 Stat. 807 ("AAPA"), or the Refugee Crisis in
Iraq
Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-181, 122 Stat. 395 ("RCIA"), by
submitting an application for Chief of Mission ("COM")
approval,
and (2) whose applications have been awaiting government
action
for longer than 9 months on or before Nov. 30, 2022."
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bReJzc at no extra
charge.[CC]
MICHAEL RABB: Mofrad Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Mofrad, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant ARDELYX,
INC, and others similarly situated v. MICHAEL RABB, DAVID MOTT,
ROBERT BAZEMORE, WILLIAM A. BERTRAND, JR., MUNA BHANJI, ONAIZA
CADORET-MANIER, RICHARD RODGERS, and JUSTIN RENZ, and ARDELYX,
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-12302-LTS (D. Mass., Sept. 6, 2024), is
brought against certain current and former executive officers and
members of the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") for
breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate
assets, and violations of Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Plaintiff alleges the following based upon personal knowledge
as to himself and his own acts, and information and belief as to
all other matters, based upon, inter alia, the investigation
conducted by and through Plaintiff's attorneys, which included,
among other things, a review of Defendants' publicly available
documents, conference call transcripts and announcements made by
Defendants, United States Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") filings, press releases published by and regarding Ardelyx,
legal filings, news reports, securities analysts' reports about the
Company, and other publicly available information.
This is a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of
Ardelyx against certain current and former officers and members of
the Company's Board (collectively, the "Individual Defendants")
for, among other things, breaching their fiduciary duties to the
Company and its stockholders by intentionally or recklessly making
or permitting the dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements and omissions between October 31, 2023 and July 1, 2024,
inclusive (the "Relevant Period").
Following the FDA's approval of XPHOZAH in October 2023, the
Company had indicated that it would apply to include XPHOZAH in
TDAPA. For instance, on an earnings call on May 2, 2024, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Defendant Michael Raab
("Raab"), stated that "our intent is to enter TDAPA." Throughout
the Relevant Period, the Individual Defendants made or caused the
Company to make similar statements concerning the Company's
intentions to apply to include XPHOZAH in TDAPA, which were
materially false and misleading. On July 2, 2024, the Company made
the shocking announcement that it, "in an effort to preserve
patient access to its phosphate absorption inhibitor XPHOZAH,"
Ardelyx had, in fact, decided not to apply to include XPHOZAH in
TDAPA. On this news, the price of Ardelyx stock dropped 30.25%, or
$2.29 per share, to close at $5.28 per share on July 2, 2024.
The Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
issuing, causing the issuance of, and/or failing to correct the
materially false and misleading statements and omissions of
material fact to the investing public. Specifically, the Individual
Defendants made or caused the Company to make false and misleading
statements, and omitted material facts, by indicating that Ardelyx
would apply to include XPHOZAH in TDAPA when in fact, Ardelyx had
not yet reached a decision concerning whether or not to apply to
include XPHOZAH in TDAPA, and could not decide whether or not to
submit such an application to CMS until after it first reviewed
CMS's proposed Calendar Year 2025 ESRD payment system bundle rule,
which was only issued on June 27, 2024, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been a continuous shareholder of Ardelyx
common stock since April 2021.
Ardelyx is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the business of
developing and commercializing biopharmaceutical products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
18 Grove Street, Suite 5
Wellesley, MA 02482
Phone: (781) 453-0100
Email: mmatorin@matorinlawoffice.com
- and -
Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 683-3516
Email: tjm@rl-legal.com
- and -
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (267) 507-6085
MICHAELS STORES: Azizian Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Haik Tahmaseb Azizian, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; DAVID ESCALON, an individual and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV20527 was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Oct. 7, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08624.
The Plaintiff Azizian worked for Michaels from approximately
December 2023 through January 2024. He asserts claims under the
California Labor Code for failure to pay overtime wages, pay
minimum wages, provide meal and rest periods, pay all wages due
upon termination, provide accurate itemized wage statements, timely
pay wages during employment, reimburse business expenses, and pay
accrued and unused vacation time upon termination. He also asserts
a claim for unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq.
Dixie M. Morrison, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-557-2900
Facsimile: 310-557-2193
Email: gknopp@proskauer.com
jslowik@proskauer.com
dmorrison@proskauer.com
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $750,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Thomas, writing for Reuters, reports that snack food giant
Mondelez and law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner have reached a
tentative $750,000 settlement to resolve a proposed class action
lawsuit over a 2023 data breach at the firm that compromised
personal information belonging to thousands of Mondelez employees.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs, a proposed class of 51,100 current and
former Mondelez employees who said their data was not properly
protected, asked, opens new tab a Chicago federal judge on October
4 to grant preliminary approval to the deal.
Mondelez and BCLP denied wrongdoing and made no admission of
liability in the settlement, opens new tab. The plaintiffs' lawyers
will be able to request up to $250,000 from the court as their
fee.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs and lawyers and spokespeople for
Mondelez and BCLP did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.
The settlement comes after U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso in
Chicago dismissed some of the plaintiffs' claims against Mondelez
and 1,200-lawyer BCLP in June.
As an outside law firm for Mondelez, BCLP possessed personal
information on its employees including names, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers and addresses, according to the plaintiffs.
After hackers gained access to the files in a 2023 breach at the
firm, the employees sued both Mondelez and BCLP for failing to
safeguard their data.
Mondelez was represented by a team of attorneys from DLA Piper,
while BCLP was represented by attorneys from Baker & Hostetler.
The case is In re: Mondelez Data Breach Litigation, U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 1:23-cv-03999. [GN]
MULTIPLAN INC: Sued Over Unlawful Misconduct
--------------------------------------------
Center for Orthopaedics and Spine, LLC, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MULTIPLAN, INC., and MULTIPLAN
CORP., VIANT, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01363 (W.D. La., Oct. 7,
2024), is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
consisting of all individuals or entities residing in Louisiana who
have received reimbursement from one or more of Defendants or
Co-Conspirators, or a division, subsidiary, predecessor, agent, or
affiliate of such entities, for out-of-network healthcare services
from at least July 1, 2017 until present or when Defendants'
unlawful misconduct and anticompetitive effects cease (the "Class
Period").
MultiPlan claims that its "repricing" "recommendations" are
determined by an "algorithm" that calculates a reimbursement based
on historical reimbursements to similar providers providing the
same health care services, adjusted for cost-of-living. MultiPlan
touts this methodology to healthcare providers and the public as a
"fair" way to streamline out-of-network claims.
All major insurers, and more than 700 smaller insurers, have joined
with MultiPlan to form a cartel dedicated to depriving healthcare
physicians of fair reimbursement for out-of- network services. Many
well-known insurers—including UnitedHealth, Cigna, Humana, Aetna,
Centene, and Elevance (the last of which includes many Blue Cross
and Blue Shield associations) have taken an active role in
perpetuating this scheme.
Members of this MultiPlan Cartel agree on the method of pricing
out-of-network claims. They agree to share their competitively
sensitive reimbursement data to help drive the algorithm. They
agree to allow MultiPlan to align the "override" values applied to
the claims. They agree to pay healthcare providers what MultiPlan
tells them to pay, and not to undercut other Cartel members with
competitive pricing. They agree to condition payment on a
providers' agreement not to bill the patient for the proportion of
the claim the insurer does not pay—a critical step in keeping the
existence of the Cartel secret.
Healthcare providers were the intended and actual victims of the
MultiPlan Cartel's scheme. As MultiPlan repeatedly bragged in
financial reports, its "repricing" methodology underpaid healthcare
providers by more than $19 billion per year—and in the past two
years, by more than $22 billion per year. The MultiPlan Cartel's
illegal conspiracy to underpay healthcare providers threatens
providers' very survival, and should be stopped, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff offers a range of orthopedic surgical services to
residents of Calcasieu Parish and the surrounding geographical
area.
MultiPlan, Inc. is a company that helps health insurers underpay
struggling healthcare providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd Townsley, Esq.
David H. Hanchey, Esq.
THE TOWNSLEY LAW FIRM, LLP
3102 Enterprise Blvd.
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Phone: (337) 221-5264
Fax: (337) 478-1577
Service: ahebert@townsleylawfirm.com
- and -
Tommy Kherkher, Esq.
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
Alexander G. Kykta, Esq.
ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD & MONTGOMERY, LLP
4200 Montrose, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 322-6387
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
Email: tkherkher@eksm.com
jellzey@eksm.com
lmontgomery@eksm.com
akykta@eksm.com
Service: firm@eksm.com
- and -
D. Brett Turnbull, Esq.
TURNBULL, HOLCOMB &MOAK, P.C.
2501 20th Place South, Suite 425
Birmingham, AL 352223
Phone: (205) 831-5040
Fax: (205) 848-6300
Email: bturnbull@turnbullfirm.com
MUR II INC: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Musa Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAH MUSA, NAHID HUSSAIN, CARLOS ENRIQUE RUBIO, and LUIS ALBERTO
FLORES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MUR II INC. d/b/a MUR, NOVO HOSPITALITY CORP. d/b/a
NOVO STEAKHOUSE, TRU BY MUR INC., IGOR FAZYLOV, and ELANA ARABOV,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06960 (E.D.N.Y., October 2, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to pay for all
hours worked, including overtime wages, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as non-exempt restaurant
employees at any time between 2020 and 2024.
Mur II Inc., doing business as Mur, is a company that owns and
operates a Mediterranean restaurant called "NOVO," located at 310
Central Avenue, Lawrence, New York.
Novo Hospitality Corp., doing business as Novo Steakhouse, is a
company that owns and operates a Mediterranean restaurant called
"NOVO," located at 310 Central Avenue, Lawrence, New York.
Tru By Mur Inc. is a company that owns and operates a Mediterranean
restaurant called "NOVO," located at 310 Central Avenue, Lawrence,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE: Catty Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Erica Catty and Charles Catty, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New
York Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-07585 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2024),
is brought arising from unpaid wages for the Defendant's willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and for common
law claims of breach of contract or (in the alternative) unjust
enrichment.
The Defendant requires its Customer Service Representatives (or
"CSRs"), to work a full-time schedule, plus overtime, however,
Defendant does not compensate CSRs for all work performed.
Defendant requires its CSRs to perform compensable work tasks
off-the-clock before their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid
meal periods. This policy results in CSRs not being paid for all
time worked, including overtime.
The Defendant's CSRs, jobs are hourly, non-exempt positions with
rigid schedules that require CSRs, including Plaintiffs, to work at
least 8 hours per day, on average 5 days each week, and up to 40
hours or more in a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Texas resident who has worked for Defendant as a
remote CSR in Texas within the last two years.
New York Life Insurance Company is the nation's largest mutual life
insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place #400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Phone: (877) 561-0000
Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 W. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48178
Phone: (734) 234-5583
Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
- and -
Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
126 S. Main St
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903
Phone: (734) 662-4426
Email: orod@hooperhathaway.com
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Hansen Sues Over Sherman Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Hansen and Eileen Chang, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Northwestern University, College
Board, American University, Baylor University, Boston College,
Boston University, Brandeis University, Brown University,
California Institute of Technology, Carnegie Mellon University,
Case Western Reserve University, The Trustees of Columbia
University in the City of New York, Cornell University, Trustees of
Dartmouth College, Duke University, Emory University, Fordham
University, George Washington University, Georgetown University,
Harvard University, The Johns Hopkins University, Lehigh
University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of
Miami, New York University, Northeastern University, University of
Notre Dame du Lac, The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania,
William Marsh Rice University, University of Rochester, University
of Southern California, Southern Methodist University, Stanford
University, Syracuse University, Tufts University, Tulane
University, Villanova University, Wake Forest University,
Washington University in Saint Louis, Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, and Yale University, Case No. 1:24-cv-09667 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 7, 2024), is brought for violation of Section 1 the Sherman
Act as a result of exacerbated those student debt.
In violation of Section 1 the Sherman Act, Defendants have engaged
in concerted action to require a noncustodial parent of any
applicant seeking non-federal financial aid to provide financial
information (the "NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy"). That concerted
action substantially raised the prices that Plaintiffs and Class
members pay to attend college. Absent this agreement the University
Defendants would have competed in offering financial aid in order
to enroll their top candidates.
The Defendants' concerted action has unlawfully caused the net
price of education to increase. Net price is the cost per student
of tuition plus room and board, decreased by financial aid. The
average net price for the forty Defendant universities who use the
NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy is approximately $6,200 more than for
the ten non-NCP universities in the top 50 private universities –
indicative of the anticompetitive effects from Defendants'
concerted activity.
The Defendants' conduct is per se anticompetitive because it
constitutes an agreement between horizontal competitors related to
price. And Defendants' concerted activity is also illegal under the
rule of reason and "quick look" modes of analyses. The relevant
geographic market is the United States. The relevant product market
is defined as the 50 national universities with best average U.S.
News & World Report ranking from 2008 through 2023 (the most recent
year in which Class Members applied to any of Defendants).
Together, this comprises the relevant antitrust market for elite,
private Universities, which includes the forty Defendants, all of
which use the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff attended American University from the fall of 2021
through the fall of 2023 and then transferred to Boston University
where he is currently a student.
The Defendants are College Board members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (708) 628-4949
Email: dank@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
Email: riop@hbsslaw.com
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Deselms Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anita C. Deselms, et al.,
Class Representatives, v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00243-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Class Representatives
move the Court to enter an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e):
-- certify the Settlement Class,
-- preliminarily approving the Class Action Settlement,
-- approving the form of notice to the Settlement Class,
-- provisionally appointing present Class Representatives as
Settlement Class Representatives,
-- provisionally appointing present Class Counsel as Settlement
Class
Counsel,
-- appointing a Deposit Escrow Agent to receive Defendants'
deposit
of $12,000,000, and
-- appointing a Distribution Escrow Agent.
Occidental is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon
exploration.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Yyyzb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert P. Schuster, Esq.
Bradley L. Booke, Esq.
ROBERT P. SCHUSTER P.C.
250 Veronica Lane, Suite 204
Jackson, WY 83002
Telephone: (307) 732-7800
E-mail: bob@bobschuster.com
brad@bobschuster.com
- and -
Samuel Issacharoff, Esq.
40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012
Telephone: (212) 998-6580
E-mail: si13@nyu.edu
- and -
Robert Klonoff, Esq.
2425 S.W. 76th Avenue
Portland, OR 97225
Telephone: (503) 702-0218
E-mail: klonoff@usa.net
- and -
J.N. Murdock, Esq.
MURDOCK LAW FIRM, LLC
1551 Three Crowns Drive, Suite 314
Casper, WY 82604
Telephone: (307) 333.5444
E-mail: jnmurdock@murdocklawfirm.com
- and -
Laurence O. Masson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF
LAURENCE O. MASSON
2625 Alcatraz Avenue, # 206
Berkeley, CA 94705-2702
Telephone: (510) 735-9691
E-mail: lomlex@gmail.com
- and -
Thomas N. Long, Esq.
Aaron J. Lyttle, Esq.
Kaylee A. Harmon, Esq.
LONG REIMER WINEGAR LLP
2120 Carey Ave., Suite 300
Cheyenne, WY 82003
Telephone: (307) 635-0710
Facsimile: (307) 635-0413
E-mail: tlong@lrw-law.com
alyttle@lrw-law.com
kharmon@lrw-law.com
- and -
Cody L. Balzer, Esq.
BALZER LAW FIRM, P.C.
1302 Cleveland Avenue
Loveland, CO 80537
Telephone: (970) 203.1515
E-mail: cody@balzerlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Barrett H. Reasoner, Esq.
Ross M. MacDonald, Esq.
Kathy D. Patrick, Esq.
Mark Dore, Esq.
Michael Davis, Esq.
GIBBS BRUNS, LLP
1100 Louisiana Street, #5300
Houston, TX 77002
E-mail: breasoner@gibbsbruns.com
rmacdonald@gibbsbruns.com
kpatrick@gibbsbruns.com
mdore@gibbsbruns.com
mdavis@gibbsbruns.com
- and -
Darin Scheer, Esq.
Timothy M. Stubson, Esq.
CROWLEY FLECK PLLP
111 West 2nd Street, Suite 220
Casper, WY 82601
E-mail: dscheer@crowleyfleck.com
tstubson@crowleyfleck.com
OHIO STATE: Pryor Sues Over Violation of Sherman Antitrust Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor has filed a
class-action lawsuit in federal court against Ohio State, the NCAA,
the Big Ten and a communications company over his and other OSU
athletes' names, images and likenesses.
Pryor's suit seeks damages and a temporary and permanent injunction
preventing the defendants from using the names, images and
likenesses of Pryor and other former Ohio State athletes. It cites
the Sherman Antitrust Act. The suit was filed Friday, October 4, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
"For many years and continuing to the present, the Defendants have
systematically and intentionally misappropriated the publicity
rights and NIL of the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated and
in doing so have reaped millions, and perhaps billions, of dollars
from the Plaintiffs and the class," the suit said.
"Meanwhile, the student-athletes themselves were not only prevented
from capitalizing on their publicity rights, but they were punished
for doing so through the rules the NCAA forced upon them in order
for them to participate," the suit said.
Court records say the defendants still derive revenue from Pryor
and other former athletes, citing YouTube videos on the NCAA
website, as well as commercials.
The lawsuit claimed the company, Learfield Communications, and its
successors have been Ohio State's exclusive partner in regards to
multimedia rights.
The suit also states that in 2009 that IMG College, Learfield
Communications' predecessor, signed the largest athletics
multimedia rights guarantee in collegiate sports history -- $128
million -- with Ohio State.
Pryor was a star quarterback for the Buckeyes from 2008-2010.
Pryor and four of his teammates -- Daniel Herron, DeVier Posey,
Solomon Thomas and Mike Adams -- were each suspended for five games
during the 2011 season after selling rings, jerseys, shoes and
other Buckeye memorabilia and receiving discounted tattoos.
Instead, Pryor turned pro that year. The Oakland Raiders drafted
him in the third round of the NFL's supplemental draft. He went on
to play for nine teams, including the Cincinnati Bengals and the
Cleveland Browns.
In September, former USC star running back Reggie Bush sued that
school, the NCAA and the Pac-12 in a similar name, image and
likeness case. Bush played for the Trojans two decades ago. [GN]
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Roper Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit
entitled Thelma Roper, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Oliphant Financial, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-02112-BAH, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.
The Plaintiff filed this complaint against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act.
On Jan. 16, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration.
On Feb. 2, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to stay.
On Sept. 12, 2024, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and granted their motion to stay discovery
through an Order entered by Judge Brendan Abell Hurson.
The Court finds that the Defendants can no longer compel
arbitration since they failed to timely enforce their arbitration
right when they initiated a debt collection lawsuit outside the
statute of limitations.
The appellate case is captioned Thelma Roper v. Oliphant Financial,
LLC, Case No. 24-1933, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 27, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee THELMA ROPER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Emanwel Josef Turnbull, Esq.
HOLLAND LAW FIRM, PC
914 Bay Ridge Road
Annapolis, MD 21403
Telephone: (410) 280-6133
Defendants-Appellants OLIPHANT FINANCIAL, LLC, et al. are
represented by:
Eugene Xerxes Martin, IV, Esq.
MARTIN GOLDEN LYONS WATTS MORGAN PLLC
8750 North Central Expressway
Dallas, TX 75231
Telephone: (214) 346-2630
ONEPATH CUSTODIANS: Settles Commission Class Suit for $50-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beata Kuczynska of Professional Planner report that OnePath
Custodians, ANZ and Zurich Australia have agreed to settle a
fees-for-no-service class action lawsuit for $50 million, closing
another chapter on misconduct uncovered during the Hayne royal
commission.
OnePath, now owned by Insignia Financial, will pay $22 million
while former owner ANZ will contribute $14 million, but is still
subject to court approval.
Announced to the ASX on Friday morning, October 4, Insignia said
the settlement will be included in 1H25 reporting and excluded from
underlying net profit after tax.
Despite the large settlement, there will be no admission from any
company of liability or wrongdoing.
The settlement is the third secured by Slater and Gordon's
so-called 'get your super back' campaign, which was launched in
response to the damning Hayne royal commission which put
institutional financial service companies on notice for
overcharging clients while providing no service.
The class action was the fifth launched from this campaign and was
filed on behalf of members of the former OnePath Master Fund and
Retirement Portfolio Service.
It alleged OnePath allowed the charging of excessive fees that had
no additional benefit for members to pay unnecessary commissions to
financial advisers.
Slater and Gordon practice group leader Kirsten Morrison said in a
media release the law firm was pleased with the outcome.
"It also demonstrates the importance of the class action regime,
which has enabled two lead applicants to represent thousands of
other group members who otherwise may not have known about these
issues," Morrison said.
"This settlement further strengthens the momentum of the get your
super back campaign and reflects Slater and Gordon's commitment to
protecting the interests of millions of superannuation members
across Australia."
Insignia, then still IOOF, had announced in October 2017 its
intention to acquire OnePath along with aligned dealer groups
including RI Advice and Millenium3 from ANZ, with the OnePath deal
being finalised in February 2020.
But OnePath's model fell under the spotlight of the royal
commission and in August 2018, ANZ announced it would no longer
retain grandfathered commissions for OnePath investment and
superannuation platforms, and that clients would receive the amount
of the commission as a rebate.
The class action also alleged that OnePath breached its duties by
investing members' superannuation funds in cash investment options
with its parent company ANZ. OnePath deposited these funds with ANZ
despite it having low interest rates, hence resulting in inadequate
returns.
According to Slater and Gordon, the settlement entitles many
members with OnePath or ANZ superannuation or pension accounts to
compensation, which will be paid to group members who register with
the firm.
The settlement also marks the second set of remediation new CEO
Scott Hartley has had to earmark in respect to OnePath, after $23
million was provisioned for an enforceable undertaking by APRA in
its FY24 results.
OnePath was also taken to court by ASIC and fined $5 million almost
a year ago for misleading conduct.
Between December 2015 and November 2021, ASIC found the
superannuation trustee was found to have made misleading
representations about its right to continue charging fees and
failed to provide services honestly and fairly due to its
misleading conduct.
During this period, OnePath issued statements containing false or
misleading representations to approximately 15,962 members.
Slater and Gordan secured another class action settlement over a
year ago against Colonial First State for $100 million in a similar
class action over fees for no service misconduct off the back of
the royal commission. [GN]
ONETOUCHPOINT CORP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seth A. Goldberg, writing for mondaq, reports that last week, in a
putative class action, the Eastern District of Wisconsin in
Dusterhoft v. OneTouchPoint Corp., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170993 (ED
WI 2024), issued a decision denying a motion to dismiss, in part,
that underscores the importance for healthcare entities of strong
privacy compliance, including due diligence and auditing with
respect to HIPAA-protected information provided to "business
associates."
OneTouchPoint provides brand management, marketing, printing, and
supply chain logistics to healthcare providers. In connection with
those services, "OneTouchPoint collects and maintains names,
addresses, Social Security numbers (SSNs), member IDs, dates of
birth, health insurance information, and other medical information
provided during health assessments." OneTouchPoint discovered that
its servers had been improperly accessed causing a breach of 2.6
million individuals' data, including patients of nearly 40 health
insurers and healthcare service providers.
After receiving letters from OneTouchPoint advising them of the
breach, nine named plaintiffs from Arizona, Georgia, Maine,
Minnesota, South Carolina, and Wisconsin claimed that they provided
information to OneTouchPoint clients, who in turn provided to
OneTouchPoint their HIPAA-protected information that was
disseminated in the breach. Pertinent to this article, the only
injuries alleged by five of the named plaintiffs is spending time
and money combatting the effects of the breach, such as calling
banks, credit card companies, etc., and dimunition in the value of
their information.
The Court held the dimunition in value claim was insufficient to
establish standing, but he time the named plaintiffs spent
mitigating the effects of the breach was an injury sufficient to
establish standing. The Court further held that the complaint
sufficiently alleged a claim for negligence because, as alleged
damages, the mitigation efforts were not too speculative, and could
be shown to be causally related to the breach.
Importantly, the Court rejected OneTouchPoint's assertion that
HIPAA and Section 5 of the FTC Act do not create a private right of
action to assert a claim for negligence per se, i.e., a violation
of those Acts' requirements with respect to protected information,
explaining that statutory intent should dictate whether a claim for
negligence per se can be asserted, and the parties did not brief
that issue sufficiently. This argument, held the Court, could be
raised again on summary judgment.
That the named plaintiffs will be able to proceed on their
negligence and negligence per se claims, at least until a
dispositive motion is filed, highlights the importance of a
"Covered Entity," like a hospital or medical practice, sufficiently
understanding how a Business Associate will secure protected
information. OneTouchPoint may now have to incur the significant
expense of class discovery, which could lead to a
settlement-leveraging class certification motion. Given that a
HIPAA "Covered Entity" can be liable under HIPAA for failing to
properly diligence a Business Associate, one can envision
negligence and negligence per se claims being brought against a
Covered Entity for a Business Associate's data breach.
Consequently, a Covered Entity should be vigilant when it
diligences a Business Associate, consider imposing auditing or
reporting requirements on the Business Associate, and insist on
indemnification for any claims that result from the Business
Associate's data breach. [GN]
OREGON COMMUNITY CREDIT: Arthur Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
HAIK TAHMASEB AZIZIAN, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; DAVID ESCALON, an individual and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case 6:24-cv-01700-MC (D. Ore., Oct. 7, 2024), is
brought against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") due to unsolicited calls.
The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by using, or causing to
be used, an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with
non-emergency calls it places, or causes to be placed, to telephone
numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior
express consent.
The Plaintiff did not give Defendant prior express consent to place
calls, in connection with which an artificial or prerecorded voice
was used. The Defendant did not obtain from Plaintiff prior express
consent to place calls, in connection with which an artificial or
prerecorded voice was used, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided
in Azle, Texas.
The Defendant is a credit union headquartered in Euguene,
Oregon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth P. Dobson, Esq.
324 S. Abernethy Street
Portland, OR 97239
Phone: (503) 684-8198
Email: kdobson@pdxlandlaw.com
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Violates New York Warn Act, Hagins Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIAN HAGINS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL and CBS INTERACTIVE INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-07493 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2024) sues the Defendants for
failing to the provide Plaintiff and the Class Members with the
90-days written notice that is required by New York WARN for the
mass layoff that occurred at Headquarters and Surrounding
Facilities on Sept. 24, 2024, and within 30 days thereof.
The suit alleges that, on Sept. 24, 2024, the Plaintiff and the
other 294 employees who worked at or reported (either in-person or
remote) to Headquarters as well as another 50-60 employees who
worked out of surrounding worksites at 513, 518, 524, 530, or 555
W. 57th St., New York, New York were notified by the Defendants
that their employment was terminated, effective on Sept. 30, 2024.
Within 30 days of Sept. 24, 2024, other of the Defendants'
employees who reported to Headquarters or Surrounding Facilities
also had their employment terminated without NY WARN compliant
notice, the suit adds.
As a result, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered damages
by the Defendants' failure to comply with NY WARN's requirements.
The Plaintiff brings Count I on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all other similarly situated former employees, pursuant to NYLL
section 860-g, who worked at, reported to, or received assignments
from Defendants' Headquarters at 1515 Broadway, New York, New York
or surrounding sites at 513, 518, 524, 530, or 555 W. 57th St., New
York, New York, and were terminated without cause beginning on Aug.
25, 2024 through Oct. 24, 2024, or were terminated without cause as
the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoff,
termination of operations, and/or transfer of operations ordered.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants on a full-time basis from
March 2022 through September 2024. The Plaintiff worked remotely
from his home in Orange California and reported virtually to work
at Headquarters in Manhattan.
Paramount Global operates as a media company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Goodley, Esq.
Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 394-0541
E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
ryan@gmlaborlaw.com
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Ratliff Sues Over Illegal Biometric Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Hall, writing for Yahoo!News, reports that one trucking
company's monitoring technology has left it open to a scan-dal.
A class-action lawsuit filed by Jeremy Ratliff alleges that Penske
Logistics violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA) by monitoring its drivers without consent.
The law requires that, if a company plans to collect or possess an
individual's biometrics, they must inform and obtain, in writing,
that person's express consent. Ratliff's counsel alleges that
Penske failed to do so.
Still, even without that consent, Ratliff insists, Penske did
capture, use and distribute his biometric data using AI-powered
cameras that track and monitor drivers' performance on the road.
"[Penske's] AI-powered cameras would scan [Ratliff's] facial
geometry in order to track his eye movements and would report him
for any activities that it determined constituted 'distracted'
driving, such as looking away from the road," the complaint
alleges, going on to say that the technology linked each vehicle to
its individual driver.
If the technology detected what it labeled an "unsafe driving
event," Penske would receive an alert and would call Ratliff to
inform him of that, he alleges.
Ratliff accuses Penske of using the technology without his consent,
and maintains that he "had to undergo biometric monitoring as a
requirement for employment and managerial purposes, as each of
[Penske's] vehicles came equipped with a biometric camera."
He maintains that, even beyond Penske's own purported illegal use
of his biometric information, the company also shared it with third
parties, who Ratliff also did not authorize to use that
information.
"[Penske's] biometric monitoring regime allows for and resulted in
the dissemination of [Ratliff] and other class members' biometrics
to third parties, including the vendor(s) that provided the
biometric monitoring system and the data storage providers that
such vendor(s) used," counsel for Ratliff state in the complaint.
According to the complaint, Ratliff worked for Penske from November
2021 to April 2024 "as part of a contract that [Penske] had with
Vim Recyclers, located in Aurora, Ill." As part of his work, he
"regularly" drove through the Chicago area.
Ratliff initially filed the proposed class action in late August in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., which includes Chicago and
some of its suburbs. However, Penske filed for a removal from the
circuit court so that the case could be adjudicated in the Illinois
Northern District Court; in its removal motion, the company cited a
proposed class size greater than 100, among other legal
precedents.
Ratliff's proposed class includes "all individuals employed as
drivers for [Penske] in Illinois during the relevant statute of
limitations who were subject to [its] camera monitoring system,"
and estimates that the class has hundreds of members.
Ratliff seeks $5,000 for each "willful and/or reckless violation"
of the BIPA, as well as an injunction mandating Penske to comply
with Illinois' BIPA.
Penske has not filed a response to Ratliff's complaint; it instead
filed a motion requesting additional time, which a judge granted
September 30. Should Penske file a response, it will need to do so
by November 11.
However, legal documents show Penske may have an interest in
settling the case outside of court, even though Ratliff requested a
jury trial in his original case.
"[Ratliff's] allegations involve complex technology provided by a
non-party, and Penske plans to confer with plaintiff's counsel
about the results of its preliminary investigation and the
possibility of reaching an agreed resolution without the parties
needing to engage in formal discovery or motion practice," Penske's
counselors -- all from Duane Morris LLP, a Chicago-based firm --
wrote in the motion.
If the case does move forward in court, a judge will have to
certify -- in essence, approve -- the proposed class and Ratliff as
the lead plaintiff.
A spokesperson for Penske said the company does not have any
comment on the pending litigation. Counsel for Ratliff did not
respond to Sourcing Journal's request for comment. [GN]
PERRY RUSSELL: Jones Seeks to Stay Case Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert E. Jones, v. Perry
Russell et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00342-ART-CLB (D. Nev.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to
stay case proceedings pending class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vv5ys5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
PERRY RUSSELL: Lyons Seeks to Stay Case Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as William Lyons, et al., v.
Perry Russell et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00335-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to
stay case proceedings pending class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e83Hmi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
PERRY RUSSELL: Rice Seeks to Stay Case Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Percy Lee Rice v. Perry
Russell et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00339-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to
stay case proceedings pending class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rn3SP2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
PERRY RUSSELL: Thompson Seeks to Stay Case Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Thompson v. Perry
Russell et al., Case No. 23-cv-00341-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to
stay case proceedings pending class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=juvtVH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
PRESTAMOS CDFI: Seeks to File Confidential Info Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA MARSHALL, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file
certain Confidential and Highly Confidential information contained
in the Appendix in Support of its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification under seal.
Prestamos offers financial services and products for small
businesses and economic projects.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rQpkQ8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Marcel S. Pratt, Esq.
Edward D. Rogers, Esq.
Thomas J. Gallagher IV, Esq.
J. Chesley Burruss, Esq.
Henry W. Longley, Esq.
Travis W. Watson, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 665-8500
Facsimile: (215) 864-8999
E-mail: prattm@ballardspahr.com
rogerse@ballardspahr.com
gallaghert@ballardspahr.com
burrussc@ballardspahr.com
longleyh@ballardspahr.com
watsontw@ballardspahr.com
- and -
Roy Herrera, Esq.
Daniel A. Arellano, Esq.
Jillian Andrews, Esq.
Austin T. Marshall, Esq.
Beatriz Aguirre, Esq.
Jane Ahern, Esq.
HERRERA ARELLANO LLP
1001 North Central Avenue, Suite 404
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 567-4820
E-mail: Roy@ha-firm.com
Daniel@ha-firm.com
Jillian@ha-firm.com
Austin@ha-firm.com
Beatriz@ha-firm.com
Jane@ha-firm.com
PRESTAMOS CDFI: Seeks to Strike Marshall Plaintiffs' Expert Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA MARSHALL, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to strike Plaintiffs'
class certification expert reports from William Manger, William,
Briggs, and Steven Feinstein, and to exclude the testimony from
those experts.
Prestamos offers financial services and products for small
businesses and economic projects.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yURumA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Marcel S. Pratt, Esq.
Edward D. Rogers, Esq.
Thomas J. Gallagher IV, Esq.
J. Chesley Burruss, Esq.
Henry W. Longley, Esq.
Travis W. Watson, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 665-8500
Facsimile: (215) 864-8999
E-mail: prattm@ballardspahr.com
rogerse@ballardspahr.com
gallaghert@ballardspahr.com
burrussc@ballardspahr.com
longleyh@ballardspahr.com
watsontw@ballardspahr.com
- and -
Roy Herrera, Esq.
Daniel A. Arellano, Esq.
Beatriz Aguirre, Esq.
Jane Ahern, Esq.
HERRERA ARELLANO LLP
1001 North Central Avenue, Suite 404
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 567-4820
E-mail: Roy@ha-firm.com
Daniel@ha-firm.com
Jillian@ha-firm.com
Austin@ha-firm.com
Beatriz@ha-firm.com
Jane@ha-firm.com
R. G. BARRY: Picon Sues Over Website's Barriers to Blind Users
--------------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. R. G. BARRY, CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-07459 (S.D.N.Y., October 2, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.dearfoams.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, ambiguous link texts,
changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for
interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccurate
drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive
elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL
address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
R. G. Barry, Corporation 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 110
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
REVCO SOLUTIONS: Ettenger Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revco Solutions, Inc.
The case is styled as Jeffrey Ettenger, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Revco Solutions, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-06177-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Revco Solutions -- https://revcosolutions.com/ -- is a revenue
cycle management company serving hospitals, physician groups and
other constituents in healthcare community.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Ettenger, Esq.
SCHWARTZ ETTENGER, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite 205
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 777-2401
Email: jse@selawny.com
RIVERSIDE RESORT: Hansen Sues Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
RONALD HANSEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RIVERSIDE RESORT AND CASINO, LLC, a and
RIVERSIDE RESORT AND CASINO, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-01816 (D. Nev., September 27, 2024) arises from Defendants'
failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information that
Plaintiff and other Class Members, as current and former customers
of Riverside.
The Plaintiff and other Class Members received notice letters dated
September 5, 2024, disclosing that on July 25, 2024, Riverside
learned of suspicious activity in its environment. However,
Riverside's notice letters did not specify how many individuals
were affected by the data breach or provide details about the
circumstances surrounding the data breach. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied contract, and for violations of the
Nevada Consumer Fraud Act.
Riverside Resort and Casino, LLC owns and/or operates a casino,
hotel and resort complex Laughlin, NV. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
G.Mark Albright, Esq.
Kyle W. Fenton, Esq.
801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4
Las Vegas, NV 89106
Telephone: (702) 384-7111
Facsimile: (702) 384-0605
E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com
kfenton@albrightstoddard.com
- and -
Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
One South Dearborn Street, Suite 2122
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: malstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
BRONSON LEGAL LLC
1216 Broadway, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
E-mail: bronsonlegalny@gmail.com
RIVERSIDEFM INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Calcano Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. RIVERSIDEFM, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07519
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://riverside.fm, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Sept. 20, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a 4K Video & Audio
Recorder from the Defendant and to view the information on the
Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a
sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services
offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
Defendant’s Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to
contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, added
the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Calcano is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Riversidefm offers HD podcast & video software.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
ROYAL GARDENS: Edwards Sues Over Failure to Pay Hours Worked
------------------------------------------------------------
Aramis Edwards, and others similarly situated v. ROYAL GARDENS
HEALTHCARE, LLC; IHCM MANAGEMENT LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Case No. 24STCV22491 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 3,
2024), is brought under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")
as a result of the Defendant failure to pay the Plaintiff for all
hours worked.
The Defendant had a company policy wherein they would
disproportionately round down the number of hours worked, resulting
in “time shaving” and further resulting in aggrieved employees
not being paid for all hours worked. Furthermore, and to the extent
that Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were forced to work
through their meal periods and while “off the clock” or engaged
in charting and other such activities after clocking out for work,
the latter was akin to a minimum wage violation. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to provide 2 its employees with proper and
accurate reporting time pay. Due to the above “off the clock”
violations and as a matter of company policy, the Defendant also
violated Labor Code Section 510 because it failed to pay Plaintiff
and aggrieved employees overtime compensation, even though they
worked more than 8 hours per day, 12 hours per day, and/or 40 hours
per week throughout their employment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff started working at the Defendant as an LVN in
December 2023.
ROYAL GARDENS HEALTHCARE, LLC and IHCM MANAGEMENT LLC are
California Limited Liability Companies, doing business in the
County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Fox Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. FOX, et al., for
themselves and all those similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11887-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification, appointment of class
representatives, and appointment of class counsel.
The Court has previously certified the following class in this case
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
"All persons and entities that owned real property in the
following
counties, whose real property, during the relevant time period,
was
seized through a real property tax foreclosure, which was worth
and/or which was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax
delinquency and were not refunded the value of the property in
excess of the delinquent taxes owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac,
Bay,
Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Isabella,
Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw,
Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St
Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw. (the "Original Class").
The Sixth Circuit has vacated the certification of the Original
Class because the Court's earlier decision applied the juridical
link doctrine, which the Sixth Circuit rejected.
The Plaintiffs now ask this Court to certify the following class
under Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(3):
"All persons and entities that owned real property in the
following
counties, whose real property, during the relevant time period
prior to Jan. 1, 2021, was seized through a real property tax
foreclosure, which was sold at tax auction for more than the
total
tax delinquency and were not refunded the auction proceeds in
excess of the tax delinquency owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay,
Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron Isabella,
Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw,
Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St
Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw. (the "Revised Class").
Saginaw County was created by Sept. 10, 1822, and was fully
organized on Feb. 9, 1835.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tnu35b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Christopher D. Kaye, Esq.
Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W University Drive, Ste 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
cdk@millerlawpc.com
gam@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Philip L. Ellison, Esq.
OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL, PLC
Hemlock, MI 48626
Telephone: (989) 642-0055
E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com
- and -
Matthew E. Gronda, Esq.
St. Charles, MI 48655
Telephone: (989) 249-0350
E-mail: matt@matthewgronda.com
- and -
VISSER AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
Donald R. Visser, Esq.
Donovan J. Visser, Esq.
Daniel O. Myers, Esq.
2480 44th Street, SE, Suite 150
Kentwood, MI 49512
Telephone: (616) 531-9860
E-mail: don@visserlegal.com
donovan@visserlegal.com
dan@visserlegal.com
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Cert Hearing Set for May 6, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.T., et al., v. CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-06524-LJC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lisa Cisneros entered a case management
scheduling order as follows:
Joint case management statement: Jan. 9, 2025
Further case management conference: Jan. 16, 2025
Deadline to join parties and amend pleadings: Feb. 11, 2025
Expert disclosures regarding class certification: Parties to
meet
and confer.
Last day to file motion for class certification: March 18,
2025
Class certification hearing: May 6, 2025
Fact discovery cut-off: Sept. 30,
2025
Opening expert reports and disclosures: Oct. 31, 2025
Rebuttal expert reports and disclosures: Nov. 14, 2025
Expert discovery cut-off: Dec. 19, 2025
Last day to file dispositive motions and Jan. 22, 2026
Daubert motions:
Last day to hear dispositive motions and March 3, 2026
Daubert motions:
Pretrial conference: May 22, 2026,
1:30 PM
Jury trial: June 8–25,
2026
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hp84Fy at no extra
charge.[CC]
SENIOR LIFE: Matthews Sues Over Unlawful Telephone Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Matthews, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. SENIOR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-01550-MSN-LRV
(E.D. Va., Sept. 3, 2024), is brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's
abusive telephone marketing practices.
The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the TCPA, alleging that the Defendant violated the
TCPA by making telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and other putative
class members listed on the National Do Not Call Registry without
their written consent. The recipients of Senior Life’s illegal
calls, which include Plaintiff and the proposed class, are entitled
to damages under the TCPA, and because the technology used by
Senior Life makes calls en masse, the appropriate vehicle for their
recovery is a class action lawsuit, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff’s phone number has been on the National Do Not Call
Registry since August 31, 2021.
Senior Life Insurance Company is a corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Robinson, Esq.
319 N. Piedmont St., #1
Arlington VA. 22203
Phone: 703-789-4800
Email: wprlegal@gmail.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (508) 221-1510
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Chow Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER CHOW, as
Administrator of the Estate of LEROY CHOW, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SHOREFRONT OPERATING
LLC d/b/a SEAGATE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER; SHAINDY BERKO;
ROCHEL DAVID; LEAH FRIEDMAN; DEENA LANDA; ESTHER FARKOVITZ; AVI
PHILIPSON; BERISH RUBINSTEIN; DAVID RUBINSTEIN; BRUSCHA SINGER;
JOEL ZUPNICK; SHOREFRONT REALTY LLC; SENTOSACARE, LLC; and DOES
1-25, Case No. 1:19-cv-03541-FB-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will
move before the Honorable Frederic Block, for an Order pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(3):
(i) certifying case as a class action,
(ii) appointing Walter Chow as class representative and FBFG as
class counsel, and
(iii) directing appropriate notice be disseminated to the class,
and
for such other and further relief as the Court may deem
just
and proper.
Shorefront Operating is a hospital & health care company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1dVY0g at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
John D. Sardesai-Grant, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
jsardesaigrant@fbfglaw.com
SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngaas Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
Brian J. Lyngaas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC. and JOHN
DOES 1-5, Case No. 22-cv-10830 was removed from the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Oct.
4, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01600.
The Defendant Solstice Benefits, Inc. ("Solstice"), pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and 45, moves for an order
quashing six subpoenas issued to the following non-parties located
in this District and awarding Solstice the attorneys' fees.
Solstice is forced to seek the intervention of the Court to prevent
an abuse of the discovery process by the Plaintiff in a putative
class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
that was commenced over two years ago. Plaintiff had over two years
to conduct discovery in the Lawsuit, but issued the Subpoenas that
are the subjects of this Motion on July 19, 2024, only four days
before the twice-extended discovery cut off of July 23, 2024. The
six Subpoenas all seek the production within fourteen days of
service – past the discovery cut-off – of documents that are
protected by the attorney work product doctrine and that Plaintiff
has sought from Solstice, including through a pending motion to
compel discovery.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq.
Roy Taub, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER, LLP
200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-491-1120
Facsimile: 954-343-6958
Email: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com
mary.torres@gmlaw.com
roy.taub@gmlaw.com
cheryl.cochran@gmlaw.com
SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Response to Class Cert Brief Due Nov. 3
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
P.L.L.C., v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-10830-LVP-CI
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. entered an order on
Plaintiff's motion to extend class certification deadlines:
On Aug. 26, 2024, Plaintiff Brian J. Lyngaas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C.
moved for an extension of class certification briefing deadlines.
The motion is fully briefed. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff's
motion is not signed.
The Plaintiff's filing here is improper because it is unsigned. But
to avoid extending an already prolonged briefing period, the Court
will rule on the matter irrespective of the lack of signature.
Plaintiff requests a 60-day extension on class certification
deadlines in order to "allow for resolution of the pending
discovery motions and completion of the requested discovery prior
to the filing of the opening brief."
The Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to the
discovery requested in its motions, and that Plaintiff's motion for
an extension should be denied.
The Court has resolved the pending discovery motions in its Order
on discovery motions ECF No. 92, 93, and 95, and found that
Plaintiff is not entitled to additional discovery. As a result,
Plaintiff does not require a 60-day extension to resolve pending
discovery motions and complete requested discovery.
Given that more than one month has elapsed since Plaintiff filed
this motion, the Court will extend the class certification deadline
by ten days. Plaintiff's class certification brief should be filed
by Oct. 13, 2024, and Defendant's response by Nov. 3, 2024.
Solstice operates as a dental insurance agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AWHn3w at no extra
charge.[CC]
STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Breaches Statutory Obligation, Dinsmore Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin B. Dinsmore and Sheridan Downey, III, as Administrators of
the Estate of David D. Dinsmore, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Staghorn Petroleum II, LLC, Case No.
6:24-cv-00369-JAR (E.D. Okla., Oct. 4, 2024) is a class action
concerning Defendant's willful and ongoing violations of Oklahoma
law related to the payment of oil-and-gas production proceeds to
those entitled to the proceeds.
The Plaintiffs file this class action against the Defendant for
breach of its statutory obligation to pay interest. The suit
contends that the Defendant knows it is bound by statute to pay
interest on late payments, but it has consistently ignored these
obligations and blatantly violated Oklahoma law. The Defendant does
not automatically pay interest on all late payments. Instead, it
only pays interest to owners who demand it.
For these reasons, the Plaintiffs seek to obtain relief for
themselves and all similarly situated owners who received late
payments for which the Defendant did not pay interest as required
by the Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act, the suit adds.
Plaintiffs Marvin B. Dinsmore and Sheridan Downey, III were
appointed as Administrators of the Estate of David D. Dinsmore on
Sept. 17, 2021.
The Defendant is in the business of producing oil-and-gas and
constituent products from the oil-and-gas properties.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
- and -
James U. White, Jr., Esq.
JAMES U. WHITE, JR., INC.
Oklahoma City, OK 73154
Telephone: (405) 842-7545
E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com
SYSCO KANSAS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Harms Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY HARMS, and MICHAEL TUTTLE, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. SYSCO KANSAS CITY, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-02452 (D. Kan., Oct. 3, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
failed to pay the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, for all
hours worked and in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's policy and practice of
changing the time records and requiring employees to work off the
clock resulted in the failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated properly for all the time they have
actually worked, and resulted in them not receiving overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 each
workweek, the suit contends.
The Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, were hourly employees who were not exempt from the
overtime or minimum wage provisions of the FLSA, the suit adds.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are
entitled to damages equal to the mandated minimum wage and overtime
premium pay within the three (3) years preceding February 1, 2024,
through the present, plus periods of equitable tolling, because
Defendant acted willfully and knew, or showed reckless disregard of
whether their conduct was prohibited by the FLSA.
Plaintiffs Harms and Tuttle held the position of "Order Selector"
for the Defendant and worked the "outbound" shift at the Olathe
warehouse from Dec. 2, 2022 and Oct. 31, 2022, respectively.
Sysco is a foodservice distributor.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan M. Paulus, Esq.
M. Katherine Paulus, Esq.
Drew M. Russell, Esq.
CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
Kansas City, MO 64151
Telephone (816) 581-4040
Facsimile (816) 741-8889
E-mail: r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com
m.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com
d.russell@cornerstonefirm.com
TARGET CORPORATION: Ullrich Sues Over False Price Advertisements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ullrich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-08979-MAS-TJB
(D.N.J., Sept. 5, 2024), is brought seeking damages and injunctive
relief to address Target's practice of displaying false price
advertisements on shelf signs ("Shelf Prices") throughout its
stores in New Jersey and charging consumers more for items at
checkout than the advertised Shelf Prices ("Overcharged Goods") in
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"), the New
Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract Notice and Warranty Act
("TCCWNA"), and New Jersey common law.
Target uses Shelf Prices to advertise prices for merchandise to
enable consumers to calculate pricing differences among brands,
identify bargains, and to induce consumers to purchase the
advertised merchandise. Consumers reasonably rely on Shelf Prices
to make informed purchasing decisions, and reasonably expect to pay
the advertised Shelf Prices at checkout.
Target's Shelf Prices frequently do not reflect the item's selling
price at checkout. Target deceptively, fraudulently, and knowingly,
charges consumers more than its advertised Shelf Prices in
violation of NJCFA. Target's practices constitute a bait and switch
scheme in which Target baits the consumer with low Shelf Prices and
then switches to a higher price charged at checkout, in violation
of NJCFA. Target's behavior violates NJCFA §§ 56:8-2.5 by its
failure to properly mark Shelf Prices with the total selling price.
The Plaintiff and the Class members who purchased Overcharged Goods
have ascertainable losses quantified by the amount of the
overcharges caused by Target's conduct.
The false and misleading Shelf Prices affect various merchandise
throughout Target's New Jersey stores, with Overcharged Goods
costing consumers more than the advertised Shelf Prices. The
Plaintiff and the Class members who purchased Overcharged Goods
shop at Target regularly and are likely to be harmed in the future
by Target's continued display of false Shelf Prices, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Overcharged Goods at Target.
Target is a Minnesota corporation with fifty-one retail stores in
New Jersey that advertise and sell Overcharged Goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jan Meyer, Esq.
Jordan Gottheim, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAN MEYER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1029 Teaneck Road, Second Floor
Teaneck, NJ 07666
Phone: (201) 862-9500
- and -
Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
Sandy A. Liebhard, Esq.
Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
Stephanie M. Beige, Esq.
Jeffrey Mceachern, Esq.
Hairong Basil, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212)779-1414
Facsimile: (212)779-3218
- and -
Scott H. Gingold, Esq.
GINGOLD LEGAL
1326 Isabella Street
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone: (773) 793-9093
TERRAN ORBITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set November 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
securities of Terran Orbital Corporation (NYSE: LLAP) between
August 15, 2023 and August 14, 2024, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 26, 2024 in the securities class action first
filed by the Firm.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Terran securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Terran class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29314 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than November 26, 2024. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, during the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) it would take much
longer than defendants had represented to investors and analysts
for Terran to convert its contracts with its customers
(collectively, "Customer Contracts") into revenue and free cash
flow; (2) Terran did not have adequate liquidity to operate its
business while waiting for the Customer Contracts to generate
revenue and free cash flow; (3) Terran had concealed the true scope
and severity of its dire financial situation; and (4) as a result
of the foregoing, Terran's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Terran class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29314 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
TEXAS DOW EMPLOYEES: Johnson Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texas Dow Employees
Credit Union. The case is styled as Tyronza Desha Johnson,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Texas Dow Employees Credit Union, Case No. 130371-CV (Tex. Dist.
Ct., Brazoria Cty., Sept. 3, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil.
Texas Dow Employees Credit Union -- https://www.tdecu.org/ -- is a
credit union based in Lake Jackson, Texas, with 38 service
locations, including 34 member centers.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
THEORY LLC: Demaio Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls
------------------------------------------------------
Desiree Demaio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THEORY, LLC, Case No. CACE-24-012718 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Sept. 5, 2024), is brought for
injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of
the Caller ID Rules Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
("FTSA").
In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
are not capable of receiving telephone calls.
As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made
Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales
Calls").
Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted
Charming Charlie ("Drybar Text Message Sales Calls") and violated
the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller
identification services a telephone number that was not capable of
receiving telephone calls, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls.
The Defendant which sells various goods to persons throughout the
country through its online store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Class Cert Replies Modified to Oct. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lovejoy v. Transdev
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00380 (S.D. Cal., Filed
Feb. 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting second
joint motion to modify deadlines for opposition and reply re motion
for class certification:
-- Responses due by: Oct. 9, 2024
-- Replies due by: Oct. 30, 2024
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Transdev is a private sector operator of multiple modes of transit
in North America.[CC]
U.S. NURSING: Greene Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jernerica Greene, Troy Faibvre, Mayada Hamoda,
Ebony Guthrie, and Moninque Lewis, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. U.S. NURSING CORPORATION; and DOES
1-20, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00044348-CU-OE-CTL was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on Oct. 7, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-01796-BTM-BJC.
The Plaintiff alleges that PSW, Defendant Workrise Solutions, LLC
and Defendant J&A Service(s), LLC, failed to pay him and other
individuals in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: +1.213.612.2500
Fax: +1.213.612.2501
Email: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com
- and -
David J. Rashe, Esq.
Kevin J. Bohm Jr., Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Phone: +1.714.830.0600
Fax: +1.714.830.0700
Email: david.rashe@morganlewis.com
kevin.bohm@morganlewis.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gonzalez Sues Over Unfair Competition Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 1:24-at-00803 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 7,
2024), is brought Violation of Unfair Competition Law and Violation
of Tax Code, Negligence/Gross Negligence due to submission of
fraudulent information
In February of 2020, Plaintiff unexpectedly received a form
1099-MISC from Defendant, which indicated that it had paid him
approximately $6,000 in nonemployment compensation. The Plaintiff,
however, had never done any work whatsoever for Defendant and had
never been paid any money from Defendant. The Plaintiff immediately
filed an identity theft report with the Federal Trade Commission,
and reached out to Defendant for an explanation. Defendant gave
Plaintiff the run-around, and Plaintiff never received an
explanation for the 1099-MISC.
The Plaintiff brings this class action Complaint against Defendant
to stop Defendant's practice of submitting fraudulent information
returns with the Internal Revenue Service for a nationwide class of
individuals ("Class Members") who Defendant reported earned income
while working as independent contractors for Defendant, when such
people did not in fact do any work for Defendant, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of California,
County of Kern.
Uber Technologies, Inc. is a corporation with its principle place
of business located with its headquarters in the State of
California, County of San Francisco.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Matthew R. Snyder, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
msnyder@toddflaw.com
UNITED STATES: Bourque Sues to Challenge Unlawful Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Chase Bourque, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF STATE, Case No. 3:24-cv-06994 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2024), is
brought to challenge a certain fee on the grounds that the State
Department acted unlawfully when it arbitrarily and capriciously
set the fee at $60.
The United States Department of State offers expedited passport
processing for a fee, through which it issues or renews a passport
faster than through routine processing. Since at least 2018, the
State Department has charged $60 for expedited passport
processing.
The State Department is authorized to charge a fee for expedited
processing covering only the cost it takes to provide this service.
Notwithstanding this limitation, the State Department has
repeatedly failed to show, and cannot show, how the cost of
providing expedited passport processing justifies its $60 fee.
Accordingly, the State Department has overcharged Americans for
expedited passport processing.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons who paid a $60 expedited passport
processing fee. Plaintiff challenges the fee on the grounds that
the State Department acted unlawfully when it arbitrarily and
capriciously set the fee at $60. Further, this fee is not in
accordance with law and is in excess of the State Department's
statutory authority as it exceeds the amount the State Department
was authorized to charge.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to have this Court declare the State
Department's expedited passport fee unlawfully excessive, and award
Plaintiff and the proposed Class recovery of amounts charged in
excess of statutory authorization, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff submitted an application to renew his passport to the
State Department in 2024.
United States of America, through the Department of State's Bureau
of Consular Affairs, issues and renews passports and charges fees
for these services, including the expedited passport fee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
Madelyn Petersen, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Email: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
mpetersen@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Charles Reichmann, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMANN
16 Yale Circle
Kensington, CA 94708-1015
Phone: (415) 373-8849
Email: charles.reichmann@gmail.com
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA: Union Sues Over Post-Tenure Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madelyn Schneider of Spinnaker reports that The University of North
Florida faculty union filed a class action grievance against the
university on Friday, October 4, alleging that UNF violated the
union's agreements on post-tenure review guidelines.
In its grievance, the United Faculty of Florida at UNF requested
the university acknowledge that it used peer comparisons in faculty
members' post-tenure review evaluations and that the use of
comparisons be discontinued from now on. UFF-UNF also requested
compensation for any employees who were "adversely affected" by
peer comparisons.
In May of 2023, Gov. Ron Desantis signed a bill requiring the
tenured faculty of Florida's public universities to undergo
post-tenure review evaluations every five years. According to the
law's language, PTR evaluates faculty on "accomplishments and
productivity," among other criteria. This is the same law that cut
the state funding of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
Previous to the 2023 law, tenured professors had job protection for
the duration of their careers at the university where they worked.
Under the new UNF policy, if a tenured professor receives an
unsatisfactory post-tenure review, the university can terminate
employment.
Since the Board of Governors approved the PTR amendments last
September, college professors across the state of Florida have been
in and out of negotiations with university administrators to agree
upon more specific evaluation criteria.
UNF's faculty union is not the first to take legal action over PTR.
Three professors from across the state of Florida filed a lawsuit
against the BOG and Florida government in August, challenging the
law's constitutionality.
Below is language from the union's statement of grievance:
Statement of grievance (must include date of acts or omissions
complained of):
"On Friday, September 6, 2024, the Employer, via its Office of the
General Counsel, sent an all-faculty email contending that peer
comparisons are a necessary component of Post-Tenure Review
("PTR"). The Employer specifically asserted that "peer comparison
was ['require(d)'] for Post-Tenure Review." The email further
asserted that deans could "consider the Average Annual
Comprehensive Score (a measure of 5 years of annual evaluation
scores) of a department."
By these assertions, among others, the Employer takes the position
that peer comparisons are embedded in the PTR process, and in turn,
necessarily violates the parties duly negotiated MOU and the CBA.
The MOU plainly states that terms like "average performance of
faculty" and other related terms "mean holistic performance that
meets expectations." Further, the parties in MOU negotiations
understood that peer comparisons would not be used in the PTR
process, with, among other things, the UNF chief negotiator
repeatedly acknowledging that peer comparisons would not be
conducted; for instance, on August 25, 2023, he stated, "there's no
step where there is a weighing in comparison to other faculty in
the department."
Accordingly, the UNF violated the CBA and the UFF/UNF Memorandum of
Understanding (Post-Tenure Review Procedures) by asserting the
applicability of and utilizing peer comparisons in the PTR
process.
Remedy Sought:
UFF-UNF requests that the University acknowledge that peer
comparisons, including the comparison of faculty according to their
AACS scores, are not permitted in the PTR process. And, to the
extent comparisons have been utilized in the PTR process thus far
that it be rescinded, and any adversely affected employees be made
whole and otherwise appropriately remedied. To the extent there is
compensation necessitated by the remedy, it should be with compound
interest.
The Union reserves the right to amend or supplement this Grievance
as it deems appropriate."
UNF's media relations assistant director said the university still
stands by the assertions made in the General Counsel's Sept. 6
email referenced in UFF-UNF's statement of grievance. [GN]
VIE DE FRANCE: Borge Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zenny Rivas Borge, and others similarly situated v. VIE DE FRANCE
YAMAZAKI, INC.; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,, Case No. 24STCV22387
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 3, 2024), is brought
under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as a result of the
Defendant failure to pay minimum wages.
VIE DE FRANCE did not provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees with compensation for all hours worked and did not pay
Plaintiff and others the minimum wages to which they were entitled
for work performed “off the clock” pursuant to California Labor
Code sections 1194, 1197 and 1197.1. Plaintiff and others also
worked “off the clock” and were not paid for all hours worked
because VIE DE FRANCE had a company policy wherein they would
disproportionately round down the number of hours worked by
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees, resulting in “time
shaving” and further resulting in aggrieved employees not being
paid for all hours worked.
In addition, VIE DE FRANCE did not provide reporting time to pay
employees. Moreover, and to the extent that meal periods were
interrupted by work obligations and work duties, that would be akin
to a minimum wage violation. For Plaintiff specifically, and
because she was misclassified, Plaintiff was not paid for being
“on call” as Plaintiff’ personal cell phone was provided to
other employees so that they can get a hold of Plaintiff whenever
necessary, even outside of work hours, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff started working for VIE DE FRANCE on 2023 and is
currently employed.
VIE DE FRANCE YAMAZAKI, INC. is a Virginia corporation, doing
business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 1.1 TB Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Wood, writing for WDW News Today, reports that The Los Angeles
Times reports that The Walt Disney Company has been met with a
class action lawsuit accusing the company of "negligence, breach of
implied contract and other misconduct" after 1.1TB of data was
compromised in July 2024.
The complaint was submitted on Thursday, October 3 in Los Angeles
Superior Court by plaintiff Scott Margel against Disney and Disney
California Adventure. There are estimated to be thousands of class
members involved in the lawsuit. Each has "highly sensitive
personal information" that was involved in the data breach.
The data breach, which took place after the hacktivist group
"Nullbulge" obtained access to Disney's internal Slack platform,
included Dinsey Cruise Line crew member passport numbers, guest
contact information, Genie+ revenue details, and more.
The complaint states that the plaintiff and class members have no
idea what information has been compromised.
[They] remain, even today, in the dark regarding which particular
data was stolen, the particular malware used, and what steps are
being taken, if any, to secure their [personal information] going
forward.
Disney did not respond to the LA Times regarding the lawsuit.
You can find more details about what information was compromised
during the data breach here.
We will continue to provide updates as the story develops. [GN]
WARNER MUSIC: Hall Bid to Maintain Certain Exhibits Under Seal OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HALL, an individual;
and LANCE HOPPEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., a Delaware Corporation;
WARNER MUSIC INC., a Delaware Corporation; and WARNER RECORDS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00457 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge Aleta Trauger entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion to maintain under seal certain exhibits filed
with the defendants' opposition to motion for class certification.
Accordingly, the Motion is granted, as follows:
1) Unredacted versions of Exhibits 11-38 to the Commons
Declaration d
shall maintain their filing under seal;
2) Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Commons Declaration shall be sealed
pursuant to the page and line chart labeled as Exhibit A
attached to this Order; and
3) Defendants shall re-file their supporting documents and
memorandum in support of their Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion
Class Certification consistent with this Order and Exhibit A
within 10 days of this Order.
Warner is an American multinational entertainment and record label
conglomerate.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WYswWZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Flumerfelt Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY FLUMERFELT, FRANCES
RIDENOUR, ANTHONY HAMILTON and HOLLY HAMILTON, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE,
RICHARD SOLLARS, in his official and individual capacities, JEFFERY
BAUM, in his official and individual capacities, SHADY AWAD REALTY
TRANSITION LLC, TAYLOR REHAB TWO LLC, HADIR ALTOON TAYLOR SOUTH
INVESTMENT LLC, and ABIGAIL INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No.
4:22-cv-10067-FKB-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order to:
1. Certify two classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) and 23
(b)(3) defined as follows:
"All persons and entities that owned real property in the
City
of Taylor whose real property, during the relevant time
period,
was seized through a real property tax foreclosure and
subsequently purchased via a local municipality's "right of
refusal," which was worth more than the total tax delinquency
taxes owed and were not refunded the surplus equity in excess
of
the delinquent tax amount. (herein referred to as "Class
One")
All persons and entities described in Class One whose real
property was transferred from the City of Taylor to any
entity
or entities owned by or associated with Defendants Shady Awad
or
Hadir Altoon (herein referred to as "Class Two").
2. Appoint Mark L. McAlpine of McAlpine P.C. and Scott F. Smith
of
the Smith Law Group, PPLC as Co-Lead Counsel; and
3. Appoint Plaintiff Judy Flumerfelt and Holly Hamilton as class
representatives.
This case involves the protection of a constitutional right dating
as far back as the Magna Carta (1215) and seeks to remedy a
grievous wrong. Defendant Wayne County, acting as the foreclosing
government unit under Michigan's General Property Tax Act,
foreclosed on real property belonging to Plaintiffs, as well as
each of the Putative Class members, when they fell behind on paying
their property taxes.
However, Wayne County took much more than what it was owed. It took
the entire real property, including substantial equity, and did not
refund the overage.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UDei6F at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott F. Smith, Esq.
SMITH LAW GROUP
30833 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334 3201
Telephone: (248) 302-7181
E-mail: smithsf.law@gmail.com
- and -
Mark L. Mcalpine, Esq.
Daniel J. Pifko, Esq.
MCALPINE P.C.
University Dr., Suite 200
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
Telephone: (248) 373-3700
E-mail: mlmcalpine@mcalpinepc.com
dpifko@mcalpinepc.com
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Luckett Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNETTA LUCKETT is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Steven Lynetta Luckett, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wintrust
Financial, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03968, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this putative
class action is brought against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
by selecting, retaining, and/or otherwise ratifying
poorly-performing investments instead of offering more prudent
alternative investments.
On November 8, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the entire
complaint.
On July 14, 2023, the Court granted Wintrust's motion to dismiss
and gave the Plaintiff until August 2, 2023, to file an amended
complaint.
The Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint which Wintrust
moved to dismiss on September 14, 2023.
In August 2024, Judge Mary M. Rowland granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. The Court
held that the Plaintiff's fiduciary breach claims lack a plausible
factual basis. She does not seek leave to amend, nor does she
indicate that she can add additional allegations to bolster her
claims,
it added.
The appellate case is captioned Lynetta Luckett v. Wintrust
Financial, Case No. 24-2705, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, filed on September 26, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LYNETTA LUCKETT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
James E. Miller, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Defendant-Appellee WINTRUST FINANCIAL is represented by:
Lars Golumbic, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 861-6615
WORKRISE SOLUTIONS: Crawley Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jared Crawley, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. WORKRISE SOLUTIONS, LLC, D/B/A
WORKRISE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., F/K/A RIG-UP SERVICES, INC., PRESTON'S
WELL SERVICES, J&A SERVICE(S), LLC,, Case No. 24STCV20527 was
removed from the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia on Oct. 7, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-00095-TSK.
The Plaintiff alleges that PSW, Defendant Workrise Solutions, LLC
and Defendant J&A Service(s), LLC, failed to pay him and other
individuals in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Luke T. Schmitt, Esq.
Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso
1225 Market Street
Wheeling, WV 26003
- and -
Justin M. Harrison, Esq.
JACKSON KELLY PLLC
500 Lee Street, East, Suite 1600
P.O. Box 553
Charleston, WV 25322
Phone: (304) 340-1000
- and -
Wendy G. Adkins, Esq.
JACKSON KELLY PLLC
3000 Swiss Pine Way, Suite 200
Morgantown, WV 26501
Phone: (304) 284-4100
YOUNG CONSULTING: Werber Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young Consulting,
LLC. The case is styled as Mathew Werber, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Young Consulting, LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08119 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 6, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Young Consulting LLC -- https://www.youngconsulting.com/ -- offers
a critical eye for organizations interested in increasing
productivity to maximize value to its stakeholders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Phone: (513) 381-2333
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
YOUNG CONSULTING: Werber Sues Over Compromised Customers' Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATHEW WERBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04484-TWT (N.D. Ga., October 3, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
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 between April 10, 2024, and April
13, 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.
Young Consulting, LLC is a software solutions provider,
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shireen Hormozdi Bowman, Esq.
Hormozdi Law Firm, LLC
1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 350
Norcross, GA 30093
Telephone: (678) 395-7795
Facsimile: (866) 929-2434
Email: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***